9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (3) TMI 449 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s. 271G - failure to furnish information or documents u/s 92D - assessee is a non-resident company and is a tax resident of Germany - HELD THAT - As decided in Procter Gamble Home Products (P) Ltd. 2019 (9) TMI 1389 - ITAT MUMBAI While quashing the penalty levied under section 271G of the Act the Co-ordinate Bench in the aforesaid decision held that unless and until a specific defect is pointed out in the documents submitted by the assessee under section 92D penalty under section 271G of the Act cannot be levied. In the absence of any notice issued under section 92D(3) of the Act requiring the assessee to furnish any information or document in respect of international transaction entered into by the assessee which is sine quo non for initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271G we are of the considered view that this is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271G of the Act. Accordingly the sole ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal issue considered in this judgment is whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] was justified in deleting the penalty of Rs. 37,52,08,140/- levied under section 271G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This penalty was imposed for the alleged failure to furnish information or documents required under section 92D of the Act concerning international transactions entered into by the assessee. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 271G of the Income Tax Act provides for a penalty if a person fails to furnish information or documents as required under section 92D(3) concerning international transactions. Section 92D mandates that every person entering into an international transaction must maintain prescribed information and documents. Sub-section (3) allows the Assessing Officer (AO) or Commissioner (Appeals) to require the furnishing of such information within a specified period. The Tribunal referenced precedents such as Procter & Gamble Home Products (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, which emphasized that penalty under section 271G cannot be levied unless a specific defect is pointed out in the documents submitted by the assessee. The Tribunal also cited the Delhi High Court's decision in Leory Somer & Controls (India) (P.) Ltd., which held that a general notice without specifying required documents under section 92D(3) cannot sustain a penalty under section 271G. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined whether the AO issued a specific notice under section 92D(3) requiring the assessee to furnish information or documents concerning the unreported international transactions. The Tribunal found that no such notice was issued, and the penalty order lacked reference to any specific notice under section 92D(3). The Tribunal reasoned that for a penalty under section 271G to be justified, there must be a failure to comply with a specific notice issued under section 92D(3). Since no such notice was issued, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty was not sustainable. Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal noted that the assessee had reported international transactions totaling Rs. 81,18,04,790/-. However, the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) identified unreported transactions amounting to Rs. 18,766,783,248/-. The assessee argued that only transactions resulting in income were reported. The Tribunal found no evidence of a notice under section 92D(3) requiring the assessee to furnish information on the unreported transactions. Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the legal requirement of section 271G, which necessitates a failure to comply with a specific notice under section 92D(3) for a penalty to be imposed. Since no such notice was issued in this case, the Tribunal found that the legal basis for the penalty was absent. Treatment of competing arguments: The Tribunal considered the Revenue's argument that the assessee failed to furnish required documentation. However, the Tribunal found that the penalty under section 271G requires a specific notice under section 92D(3), which was not issued. The Tribunal also distinguished the present case from the decision in DCIT vs. Canverges Customer Management Group Inc., noting that the latter involved section 271AA, not section 271G. Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that in the absence of a notice under section 92D(3), the penalty under section 271G was not justified. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty was upheld. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Tribunal held that for a penalty under section 271G to be valid, there must be a specific notice under section 92D(3) requiring the assessee to furnish information or documents. The absence of such a notice renders the penalty unsustainable. Core principles established: The Tribunal reinforced the principle that penalties under section 271G require non-compliance with a specific notice under section 92D(3). General notices or assumptions of non-compliance without such a notice do not meet the statutory requirements for imposing a penalty. Final determinations on each issue: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty under section 271G. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of a specific notice under section 92D(3) as a prerequisite for such penalties.
|
