Assessee had assailed the initiation of penalty proceedings under Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“K” Bench, Mumbai
 
Before Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member
 and Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member

ITA No.7199/Mum/2017
 (Assessment Year: 2013-14)

Agility Logistics Private Limited
Polaris, A-501/502, 5th Floor,
Off Marol Maroshi Road, Marol,
Andheri (East),
Mumbai 400 059
 PAN – AAACL3717A
(Appellant)

Vs.

Deputy Commissioner of
Income Tax Circle 9(1)(1),
Mumbai, Room No. 210/260A,
2nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road,
Mumbai – 400 020
 (Respondent)

ITA No.6679/Mum/2018
 (Assessment Year: 2014-15)

Agility Logistics Private Limited
Polaris, A-501/502, 5th Floor,
Off Marol Maroshi Road, Marol,
Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 067 
PAN – AAACL3717A
(Appellant)

Vs.

Asstt. Commissioner of
Income Tax, Range 9(1)(1),
Room No. 203, 2nd Floor,
Aayakar Bhavan,M.K. Road,
Mumbai - 400020
  (Respondent)

Appellant by: S/sshri Dhanesh Bafna, Ketan Ved, Nishant Shah &
Ms. Hirali Desai, A.Rs
Respondent by: S/shri Sunil Deshpande & Sushil Kr. Mishra, D.Rs

Date of Hearing: 04.02.2021
Date of Pronouncement: 11.02.2021

O R D E R

PER RAVISH SOOD, JM

The captioned appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the respective assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer underSec.143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short „Act‟), dated23.12.2014 and 28.09.2018 for A.Y 2013-14 and AY: 2014-15. We shall firsttake up the appeal for A.Y. 2013-14 wherein the assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us :

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessment Order passed in pursuance to the directions issued by the Ld. DisputeResolution Panel ('DRP') is a vitiated order, as the Dy. Commissioner ofIncome-tax, Circle-9(1)(1) ('Assessing Officer' or 'AO')/DRP erred both onfacts and in law in making/confirming the addition made by the Ld. AO to the Appellant's income.

The Appellant prays that the assessment order passed by the AO be quashed.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO / DRP erred in confirming the upward adjustment of INR 22,61,25,615 to the income of the Appellant in respect to the international transaction of freight receipts and expenses.

In doing so, the DRP has erred in agreeing with the Transfer Pricing Officer  ('TPO') / AO action of:

To know more in details find the attachment file