AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 1499
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-after referred to as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2. The only effective issue raised by the assessee is that learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition made by the AO/TPO for Rs. 19,28,148/- on account of adjustment in Specified Domestic Transactions. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case is a partnership firm and engaged in the business of manufacturing of Guar gum power from Guar dal. The assessee in the year under consideration has declared certain Specified Domestic Transactions in form No. 3CEB. The details of the same stand as under: Sr.No. Name of the Related Party Name of Transaction Transaction Value(Rs) MAM as per the assessee 1. Rama Gum Industri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. The Ld. Counsel before us filed a paper book running from pages 1 to 97 and submitted that the impugned transaction has been removed from the scope of Specified Domestic Transactions by way of an amendment by the Finance Act, 2017 with effective from 01/03/2017. Accordingly, once the provision of section 92BA(i) of the Act, has been deleted from the statute, then it has to be construed as if such provision has never existed under the provision of law. Accordingly, the Ld. A.R contended that no upward adjustment can be made. 7. On the contrary, the Ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 8. We have heard the rival contentions of both the part....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 92BA was omitted by Finance Act, 2017 with effect from 1-4-2017 from the statute the same cannot be made applicable in the pending proceeding. It is, therefore, to be considered no nest in the concerned statute as if it had never been passed. In that view of the matter once the said Clause being omitted with effect from M-2017 the decision made by Assessing officer/Transfer Pricing Officer and Dispute Resolution Panel invoking such section 91BA is without any basis, and/or jurisdiction, invalid and bad in law and, thus, the same is liable to be quashed. On this aspect, we have further carefully considered the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. While dealing with the issue the Hon'ble Court was pleased t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2-BA of the Act, which has already been removed by the Finance Act, 2017 with effect from 1-4-2017, therefore, the imposition of penalty under section 271-BA of the Act for failure to furnish the report in prescribed Form No. 3CEB in terms of provisions of section 92- E of the Act, does not survive at all. Accordingly, we allow the appeal of the assessee and cancel levied under section 271BA of the Act by the assessing officer and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.' ii) ITAT Gauhati Bench in the matter of Shree Shai Smelters (I) Ltd v. ACIT'mlTA No. 228/GAU/2019 for assessment year 2014-15 :2020 TaxPuhfDT) 3091 (Gau-Trib) dealt with the identical issue. The re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fect of such 'omission' of clause (i) of section 92-BA means that this provision never existed in the statute book, since clause (i) of section 92-BA never existed in the statute book therefore, learned Principal Commissioner cannot exercise his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act in respect of specified domestic transactions referred to in clause (i) of section 92-BA of the Act. Therefore, the action of the assessing officer cannot be held to be erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, in the facts and circumstances as narrated above. Thus, the usurpation of jurisdiction of exercising revisional jurisdiction by the Principal Commissioner is 'null' in the eyes of law and, therefore, we are incli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re allowed. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 486/IND/2018 for the assessment year 2014-15 is allowed.' Thus, relying upon the ratio laid down upon the Hon'ble Kamataka High Court and different benches of the Tribunal we find no justification in passing the impugned order by the Transfer Pricing Officer/Assessing officer in making upward adjustment invoking section 92- BA (i) of the Act in the present facts and circumstances of the case particularly when the said section stood omitted with effect from 1^-2017 from the statute itself. Hence, we find the same is without any basis, void ab initio and without jurisdiction, hi our considered opinion the impugned order is, thus, bad in law and....