9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (9) TMI 33 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s. 271G - assessee has entered into an international transactions with its AE and has failed to furnish documents or information as required under section 92D(3) - HELD THAT - As decided in own case 2019 (9) TMI 1389 - ITAT MUMBAI relying on case of Leroy Somer Controls (India) (P) Ltd 2013 (9) TMI 761 - DELHI HIGH COURT we are of the view that the assessee has sufficiently complied with the requirement of Rule 10D(i) of the Rules and moreover the AO has not raised any specific issue which specific documents is not produced under section 92D(3), hence, we conclude that the assessee has furnished all the informations as asked for by the AO and unless and until a specific defect is pointed out in the submissions of documents, penalty under section 271G of the Act cannot be levied. We delete the penalty and allow the appeal of the assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of penalties under section 271G by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 2. Compliance with documentation requirements under section 92D(3) of the Income Tax Act. 3. Validity of notices issued under section 92D(3). 4. Application of reasonable cause under section 273B for non-compliance. Detailed Analysis: 1. Confirmation of Penalties under Section 271G: The appeals by the assessee arose from the common order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai, confirming penalties under section 271G for the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15. The penalties were levied because the assessee failed to furnish required documents or information for international transactions with its Associated Enterprises (AEs), as mandated by section 92D(3) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Compliance with Documentation Requirements under Section 92D(3): The assessee argued that there was no failure to maintain information as required by section 92D(1) read with Rule 10D of the Income Tax Rules. The documents requested included audited segmental accounts for AE and non-AE transactions and manufacturing and distribution segments. The assessee contended that these documents were not required because the foreign AE was selected as the tested party in its Transfer Pricing (TP) study benchmarking analysis. 3. Validity of Notices Issued under Section 92D(3): The assessee argued that notices under section 92D(3) must be specific and not vague or casual. The Tribunal found that the notices issued were general and did not specify the particular documents required. This was a key point in the Tribunal's decision to delete the penalties, as general notices do not meet the statutory requirements for imposing penalties under section 271G. 4. Application of Reasonable Cause under Section 273B: The Tribunal noted that penalties under section 271G can be imposed only if the default is proved without reasonable cause. The assessee had submitted various documents during the TP assessment proceedings, which were considered adequate in a similar case involving a group concern. The Tribunal found that the assessee had made substantive compliance with Rule 10D, and the general notice issued did not justify the imposition of penalties. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had sufficiently complied with the documentation requirements under Rule 10D. The penalties under section 271G were deleted because the notices issued were general and did not specify the documents required. The Tribunal followed precedents set by the Delhi High Court and other cases involving similar issues, emphasizing that penalties cannot be sustained when the notices are vague and the assessee has made substantive compliance. The appeals by the assessee were allowed, and the penalties were set aside.
|
