9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 918 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271G - Penalty for failure to furnish information or document under section 92D - CIT(A) deleted the levy - Held that - As during TP proceedings no intimation was given to the assessee alleging any delayed filing of TP report. There is no allegation of any specific non-compliance. The assessee on receipt of show cause notice reverted back to TPO asking for details of alleged non-compliance. In reply, the TPO instead detailing the nature of allegation again made a vague assertions that assessee s case was liable for penalty u/s 271G of the Act. From the record, we are unable to comprehend as to what exact nature of non-compliance is made by the assessee. It is trite law that in penalty proceedings, the assessee needs to be made aware of the exact nature of charge which is leveled against him. This is so because the assessee is suppose to give a reply on the specific allegation and not on the assumptive allegation. In order to impose any penalty, it is obligatory on the part of the Officer to indicate specific allegation. In the absence whereof, the penalty proceedings are not sustainable. Hence, we uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A) deleting the penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of penalty under Section 271G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the order passed under Section 271G is barred by limitation. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of Penalty under Section 271G: The Revenue challenged the deletion of a penalty amounting to Rs. 2,16,47,823/- imposed under Section 271G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty was imposed due to the assessee's failure to furnish the transfer pricing (TP) documentation within the prescribed time. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued a show cause notice on 29-10-2010, which the assessee allegedly did not respond to adequately. The AO argued that the assessee did not provide the TP documents despite several opportunities, and the delay in submission was deliberate, thus justifying the penalty. The assessee contended that the notices issued by the AO were vague and non-specific, failing to indicate which specific documents were required. The assessee had submitted Form No. 3CEB and other relevant documents, and the delay in submitting the TP report was not intentional. The assessee argued that all necessary documents were eventually provided, and there was no inconvenience caused to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). The CIT(A) deleted the penalty, and the Revenue appealed this decision. The assessee relied on the case of Cargill India (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, where the Delhi Tribunal held that penalty notices must be specific and cannot be vague. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the notices issued by the AO were indeed vague and lacked specificity. The ITAT referenced the Delhi High Court judgment in CIT v Bumi High Way (I)(P) Ltd., which emphasized the need for specific findings and proper application of mind in penalty orders. 2. Whether the Order Passed under Section 271G is Barred by Limitation: The assessee argued that the penalty order under Section 271G was barred by limitation. However, this ground was not raised in the memo of appeal before the CIT(A) or through an application for an additional ground. The CIT(A) did not decide on this issue, and the ITAT found that the ground did not arise out of the CIT(A)'s order. Consequently, the ITAT dismissed this contention. Conclusion: The ITAT concluded that the penalty imposed under Section 271G was rightly deleted by the CIT(A) due to the vagueness and lack of specificity in the notices issued by the AO. The ITAT also dismissed the assessee's cross-objection regarding the limitation issue, as it was not properly raised before the CIT(A). Both the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection were dismissed. The order was pronounced in the open Court on 16-01-2015.
|
