9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 1589 - AT - Income TaxImposition of penalty u/s 271G - Assessee is mainly engaged in diamonds business focusing on the Manufacturing & Training segment of the diamond industry - Assessee failed to furnish information or documents in respect of segmental amount relating to transaction made with AEs and non-AEs for determination of arms length price of international transactions as required by TPO under Rule 10D(1) and Rule 10D(3) - CIT-A deleted the addition - Held that - CIT(A) has deleted the penalty by observing that keeping in view nature of diamond business in which the Assessee is engaged, it has sustainably complied with the requirement of filing documents with respect to segmental amount relating to transactions with AE & non-AEs for determination of arms length price of international transaction. Accordingly the CIT(A) observed that when there is no adjustment made in the arms length price, penalty so imposed is not justified. CIT(A) has also relied on various judicial pronouncement having similar facts, wherein penalty has been deleted u/s 271G of the Act, when no adjustment in arms length price was made. Detailed findings so recorded by the CIT(A) have not been controverted by Ld. DR, accordingly we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A). - decided against revenue
Issues Involved:
1. Imposition of penalty under Section 271G of the IT Act. 2. Compliance with documentation requirements under Rule 10D. 3. Application of the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) versus the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) method. 4. Nature and peculiarities of the diamond trading business. 5. Justification for the deletion of the penalty by CIT(A). Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Imposition of Penalty under Section 271G of the IT Act: The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which deleted the penalty imposed under Section 271G for the assessment year 2011-12. The penalty was initially levied by the Assessing Officer (AO) on the grounds that the Assessee failed to furnish segmental information or documents related to transactions with Associated Enterprises (AEs) and non-AEs as required for determining the arm's length price (ALP) of international transactions. 2. Compliance with Documentation Requirements under Rule 10D: The AO/TPO (Transfer Pricing Officer) argued that the Assessee did not maintain adequate records as required under Rule 10D(1) and Rule 10D(3), which frustrated the department's efforts to determine the ALP. The Assessee, however, contended that it had maintained necessary books and furnished various documents, including segment-wise Profit Level Indicators (PLI) during the penalty proceedings. The Assessee further explained the impracticality of applying the CUP method due to the unique nature of the diamond business. 3. Application of the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) versus the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) Method: The TPO criticized the Assessee for inappropriately applying the TNMM and insisted on the internal CUP method. However, the Assessee argued that the CUP method was not suitable due to the variability in the types of goods sold and the peculiar characteristics of the diamond trade. The CIT(A) observed that the department had accepted the TNMM as the most appropriate method in preceding years without adjustments, and thus the penalty under Section 271G was not justified. 4. Nature and Peculiarities of the Diamond Trading Business: The judgment extensively discussed the unique aspects of the diamond business, including the stages of diamond processing, the risks involved, and the difficulties in maintaining comparable data. The Assessee's business involved importing rough diamonds, getting them cut and polished, and then selling them. The CIT(A) acknowledged the complexities in tracking and comparing individual diamonds due to their unique characteristics and the lack of homogeneity in the product. 5. Justification for the Deletion of the Penalty by CIT(A): The CIT(A) deleted the penalty, noting that the Assessee had substantially complied with the documentation requirements and that no adjustments were made to the ALP. The CIT(A) relied on judicial precedents where penalties under Section 271G were deleted in similar circumstances. The CIT(A) highlighted that the TPO could have used alternative methods to ascertain the ALP, such as comparing the gross profitability levels of the AEs, but failed to do so. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty under Section 271G, agreeing that the Assessee had substantially complied with the documentation requirements and that the peculiar nature of the diamond business made strict adherence to the CUP method impractical. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s findings were not effectively countered by the Revenue, and thus there was no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. Order Pronounced: The order was pronounced in the open court on 27.12.2018, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.
|
