Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2014 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (9) TMI 321 - HC - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271G Refernce made to submit necessary documents - Held that - Reference was not made to any particular or specific date by which assessee was required to submit the documents; or whether the same were furnished within 30 days or within the extended period of 30 days thereafter - Penalty u/s 271G cannot be imposed in this manner - A specific finding should be recorded on the date by which the assessee was required to furnish documents and whether documents were furnished, if not which documents were not furnished and whether any extension of time was granted by the Transfer Pricing Officer and if the required documents were then actually filed - The penalty order is bereft and devoid of the details and shows lack of application of mind - Transfer Pricing Officer had indicated that the AO might initiate proceedings u/s 271G but he also did not refer to date of notice, date of furnishing of information/documents etc. - There was no mandate or affirmative direction that penalty shall be imposed by the AO - the TPO had asked for specific details and documents and the details were fully complied - Compliance of the letter dated 12.06.2008 was made within period of 30 days on 25.06.2008 and then subsequently on 23.07.2008 - The date 23.07.2008 is within 60 days of issue of notice/letter dated 12.06.2008 Decided against revenue.
Issues: Appeal against deletion of penalty under Section 271G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
Analysis: 1. The appeal challenges the Tribunal's order upholding the deletion of a penalty imposed under Section 271G of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal noted that the required documents were submitted as per the Transfer Pricing Officer's acceptance, and no adverse conclusions were drawn regarding international transactions by the respondent assessee. 2. The main issue raised was the alleged delay in submitting the documents. The Assessing Officer imposed the penalty based on the recommendation of the Transfer Pricing Officer, stating that the documents were filed beyond the allowed time under Section 92D(3) of the Act. 3. The Assessing Officer rejected the assessee's contention that the documents were filed within the prescribed time. The penalty was imposed, citing a deliberate default by the assessee. However, the penalty order lacked specific details on the timeline of document submission, leading to a lack of application of mind. 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) overturned the penalty after considering that the requested documents were furnished within the specified time frame by the Transfer Pricing Officer. 5. The High Court dismissed the appeal, noting that the Revenue failed to provide essential details regarding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer and the compliance timeline. The court highlighted that the penalty order lacked discussions on the specifics of document submissions, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. 6. The judgment emphasized the importance of recording specific details related to document submission timelines and compliance in penalty orders under Section 271G. The lack of clarity in the penalty order and the absence of essential information led to the dismissal of the appeal without costs.
|