TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 1629
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order pertains to the assessment year 2017-18. 2. Learned PCIT has exercised powers u/s 263 of the Act, as regards, assessment order dated 27.10.2021. Assessing Officer had completed assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Act and assessed total income of the assessee at Rs. 6,75,33,340/-, while making additions on account of Transfer Pricing adjustment amounting to Rs. 6,44,86,098/-. 3. Before passing the impugned order, Learned PCIT issued notice to the assessee, as Learned PCIT found that the Assessing Officer, while framing the above said assessment and the making addition, did not initiate penalty proceedings 270A of the Act. Learned PCIT was of the view that penalty proceedings were to be initiated under the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dition was made by way of TP adjustment, this being a case of under reporting in consequence of misreporting of the amount of income by the assessee company, the Assessing Officer was required to initiate penalty proceedings in view of provisions of Section 270A of the Act,. In this regard, Ld. DR for the Revenue has referred to the impugned order, passed by Learned PCIT and also to the provisions of sub-section (8) and (9) of Section 270A of the Act. Reliance has also been placed on the decision dated 20.2.2023 in Anjis Developers Private Limited vs. PCIT, ITA No. 959/MUM/2022. 6. Admittedly, the assessee company entered into various international transactions with its Associate Enterprises; that the case was selected for scrutiny, and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bserved "Assessing Officer may to examine the issue of initiation of penalty proceeding u/s 270A of the Act". So, the issue was as whether penalty proceedings were or were not to be initiated. It was to be examined by the Assessing Officer. 8. From the above order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act, it can safely be said that the issue as regards initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act was to be examined by the Assessing Officer. It cannot be said that the above said observation was in the form of a direction to the Assessing Officer to must initiate penalty proceedings. 9. Reverting to the assessment order dated 27.10.2021, it is found that the Assessing Officer has specifically referred to the order dated 29.01.2021, passed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n'ble Bench of ITAT, Mumbai referred to other decisions by Hon'ble Delhi High Court, Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, Hon'ble Madras High Court and Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court as well. As observed in para 10 of the said decision, Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, in the case of Keshrimal Parasmall (1986) 157 ITR 484 took the view that was taken by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Additional CIT vs. J.K. Costa, (1982) 9 Taxman 88. The view taken by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in J.K. Costa's (supra) case was that assessment cannot be said to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue because of the failure of the Income Tax Officer to record his opinion about the leviabili....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....43 ITR 83]. * Copy of decision of Chennai Bench of Tribunal in the case of Mr. Coimbatore Vaiyapuri Maathesh vs ITO [ITA No. 373/Chny/2021]. * Copy of decision of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT [263 ITR 437] * Copy of decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Eicher Ltd. [294 ITR 310]. * Copy of decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Anil Kumar [335 ITR 83]. * Copy of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan [384 ITR 200]. * Copy of decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. D.P. Karai [266 ITR 113]. * Copy of decision of Hon'ble Guja....