9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 710X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. CIT(A) confirmed action of the AO in imposing penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- under section 271BA of the Act. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of industrial waxes and poultry feeds. For the Asst. year 2013-14, the assessee filed its return of income on 26.9.2013 declaring total income at Rs. 1,46,082/-. The return of income was taken for scrutiny assessment and order under section 143(3) read with section 92CA(3) of the Act was passed on 2.12.2016. During the financial year, the assessee firm had entered into an international transaction amounted to Rs. 5,09,26,331/-. As per section 92E of the Act, the assessee is required to get its books of Accounts audited and furnish a repo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... national transaction and not specified domestic transaction (w.e.f. 01.04.2013). The Mumbai Bench of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) in case of BNT Global Pvt. Ltd. upheld the levy of penalty under Section 271BA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for taxpayer's failure to file the audit report in Form 3CEB in respect of its international transaction of receiving foreign remittance. 3.2. Further the assessee in the instant case, was required to file the report u/s. 92E read with Rule 10E in respect of specified domestic transaction before the specified date i.e. the due date for filing of the return. Since the assessee has not filed a report in Form 3CEB before the due date of filing of the return, penalty u/s. 271BA is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted to be dropped. 6. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative Shri V.K. Singh contended that the letter dated 24.6.2016 sent by the assessee does not carry seal or stamp of the department. However, in the penalty order, the AO categorically held that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee failed to furnish the form as required under section 92E of the Act, and therefore penalty under section 271BA of the Act of Rs. 1,00,000/- was levied on the assessee, and the Ld. CIT(A) also confirmed that such report have been furnished during the assessment proceedings by the assessee, and thereby confirmed the levy of penalty. This factual matter does not require any interference, and thereby pleaded to confirm the levy of p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he above provisions shows that the Parliament has used the words "may" and not "shall", thereby making their intentions clear inasmuch as that levy of penalty is discretionary and not automatic. The said conclusion is further justified by Section 273B of the Act. A careful reading of Section 273B encompasses that certain penalties "shall" not be imposed in cases where "reasonable cause" is successfully pleaded. It is seen that penalty imposable u/s. 271BA is also included therein. By the said provisions, the Parliament has unambiguously made it clear that no penalty "shall be" imposed, if the assessee "proves that there was a reasonable cause for the said failure". As noticed, if the statutory provision shows that the word "shall" has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
