2020 (2) TMI 888
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t . The impugned order of imposing penalty u/s.271BA of Act has been passed on 25.06.2018 by the Ld. A.O without affording reasonable opportunity to the appellant and without exercising his discretion as vested by the statute. However without adjudicating the appeal despite the fact that the particular provision of specified domestic transaction has been omitted from statute by the Finance Act, 2017 the Ld. CIT (A) is erred in upholding the penalty order. Therefore orders of forum below are unsustainable and impermissible under law. B. For that the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute any other grounds if so arises at the time of hearing of this appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Joint Ventur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rms of provision of Section 92E of the Act, though it was filed after the due date of filing of return, however, there is no malafide intention behind it and non-filing of audit report is only a technical default and, therefore, no penalty can be levied. Further, ld. AR filed a copy of the order passed by the CIT(A), dated 30.07.2019 allowing the quantum appeal of the assessee and submitted that the CIT(A) has deleted the addition made by the AO on account of adjustment to the total payment of sub-contract amount, holding therein that the type of transactions made by the assessee have been removed from the definition of 'Specified Domestic Transaction' w.e.f.01.04.2017. Further, the ld. AR of the assessee to support his contentions, has pla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ound that once the clause in the said section is omitted by the subsequent amendment, it would be deemed that clause(i) was never been on the statute and there is no specification in omitting the said clause by the statue as to whether the proceeding initiated or action taken on this, shall continue or not. We have also perused the order of the CIT(A) dated 30.07.2019, copy of which is placed on record, thereby deleting the quantum addition in the case of the assessee following the above amendment in the provisions and relying on the decisions of Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. (AIR 200 SC 811), General Finance Co. 257 ITR 338 (SC), M/s GE Thermometric India Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.424/2009, dated 22.03.2018(Karnataka High Court) and Textport Overs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roceedings already initiated or action taken under clause (i) becomes redundant or otiose. In this regard, our attention was invited to judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd., (supra) in which the impact of omission of old rule 10 and 10A was examined. Having carefully examined the issue in the light of provisions of section 6 of the General Clauses Act, their Lordship has observed "that in such a case, the court is to look to the provisions in the rule which has been introduced after omission of the previous rule to determine whether a pending proceeding will continue or lapse. If there is a provision therein that pending proceedings shall continue and be disposed of under the old rule as if the rule has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 2006, the AO was not justified in taking note of a provision which was not in the statute book and denying benefit to the assesses. The whole object of such omission is to extend the benefit under Section 10B of the Act irrespective of the fact whether during the period to which they are entitled to the benefit, the ownership continues with the original assessee or it is transferred to another person. Benefit is to the undertaking and not to the person who is running the business. We do not see any merit in these appeals. The substantial question of law is answered in favour of the assesses and against the revenue. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed." 9. From the aforesaid judgments, it has become abundantly clear that once a part....