9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (4) TMI 114 - AT - Income TaxAssessee filed a return declaring a loss - scrutiny with the service of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act - A.O noticed that the assessee had entered into international transactions with its A.E TPO suggested initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271AA, 271G and 271BA - Ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty levied by the AO as the appellant had submitted chronology of events before the TPO Held that - In the penalty orders passed by the AO,there is nothing to suggest as to which particular information or document was not submitted by the assessee nor the exact nature of default has been brought out - the Revenue have not placed any material, controverting the findings of the ld. CIT(A) to enable take a different view in the matter appeal of revenue dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of penalty levied under Section 271G of the Income-tax Act. 2. Deletion of penalty levied under Section 271AA of the Income-tax Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of Penalty under Section 271G: The first issue pertains to whether the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the penalty of Rs. 22,58,827/- levied by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 271G of the Income-tax Act. The AO imposed the penalty for failure to keep and maintain information and documents as required under sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) of Section 92D of the Act. The AO held that the assessee's failure was deliberate and rejected the assessee's submissions. However, the CIT(A) cancelled the penalty, noting that the assessee had presented the case before the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) on multiple occasions and furnished the required documents, which the TPO did not deny. The CIT(A) also noted that the failure was in getting the books audited in time and filing the report in Form 3CEB, which was due to the departure of key employees and misplacement of records. The CIT(A) concluded that the documentation under Rule 10D does not require audited accounts and that the assessee had maintained and produced the required documents before the TPO. The CIT(A) also referred to a precedent where a reasonable cause for delay was accepted, thus justifying the deletion of the penalty. 2. Deletion of Penalty under Section 271AA: The second issue concerns the deletion of a similar penalty amount levied under Section 271AA of the Income-tax Act. The AO imposed this penalty for failure to keep and maintain information and documents as required by sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 92D of the Act. The CIT(A) cancelled this penalty as well, reiterating that the assessee had maintained and submitted the required documentation before the TPO. The CIT(A) emphasized that the TPO was satisfied with the documentation, as no adjustments were made to the international transactions. The CIT(A) also highlighted that the delay in filing Form 3CEB was due to uncontrollable circumstances, which constituted a reasonable cause under Section 273B of the Act, thus invalidating the penalty. Conclusion: The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s findings, but the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had indeed maintained and furnished the required documentation within the prescribed time and that the TPO had accepted the documentation without any adverse inference. The Tribunal found no specific information or document that the assessee failed to maintain or furnish. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, affirming the deletion of penalties under Sections 271G and 271AA of the Income-tax Act.
|
