Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Palm Grove Beach Hotels P.Ltd, Mumbai vs Asst Cit Cen Cir 4(1), Mumbai on 9 August, 2017
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
"C" Bench, Mumbai
Before Shri P K Bansal, Vice President
and Shri Pawan Singh, Judicial Member
ITA No.5217 /Mum/2015
(Assessment Year: 2011-12)
M/s. Palm Grove Beach DCIT, Central Circle-4(1)
Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg
Construction House-B Vs. Mumbai 400020
2nd Floor, 623, Linking Road
Khar (W), Mumbai 400052
PAN - AAACP2735J
Appellant Respondent
Appellant by: Shri Sanjay Sawant
Respondent by: Shri Saurabh Despande
Date of Hearing: 07.08.2017
Date of Pronouncement: 09.08.2017
ORDER
Per P.K. Bansal, Vice President This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)-52, Mumbai dated 28.08.2015 for A.Y. 2011-12.
2. The only issue involved in this appeal relates to the levy of penalty under section 271BA of the Income Tax Act.
3. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully considered the same along with the orders of the tax authorities below. We noted that in this case the AO levied penalty under section 271BA as according to him the assessee had not furnished information or document as prescribed under section 92D(1). Thus the assessee had made a default. When the matter went before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO.
4. The provisions of Section 271BA are subject to the provisions of Section 273B. Section 273B of the Income Tax Act clearly specify that no penalty shall be imposed on a person for any failure referred to in the 2 ITA No. 5217/Mum/2015 M/s. Palm Grove Beach Hotels Pvt. Ltd.
section 271BA in case the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure. In the impugned case the assessee vide his reply dated 25.01.2014 has categorically stated that he was under the bonafide belief that it is not an associate concern as contemplated under section 92A(2) of the Income Tax Act. In our view the interpretation taken by the assessee that section 92A(2) cannot be read in isolation but it has to be read in combination with sub-section (1) and therefore unless the case satisfies the requirements of both the section the relation between enterprise cannot be considered as that of associate concern. This in our view is a possible view and therefore we find substance in the submission of the assessee and accordingly we are of the view that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause in not furnishing the report in Form 3CEB as per the provisions of Section 92A. We therefore set aside the order of the CIT(A) and delete the penalty levied under section 271BA.
5. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 9th August, 2017.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Pawan Singh) (P.K. Bansal)
Judicial Member Vice President
Mumbai, Dated: 9th August, 2017
Copy to:
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent
3. The CIT(A) -52, Mumbai
4. The CIT, Central-II, Mumbai
5. The DR, "C" Bench, ITAT, Mumbai
By Order
//True Copy//
Assistant Registrar
ITAT, Mumbai Benches, Mumbai
n.p.