9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (8) TMI 762 - 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 - The fact of the present case are identical to the one dealt with by the tribunal in assessee group concern 2019 (9) TMI 1389 - ITAT MUMBAI wherein factual aspects and case laws of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the 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. Legality of penalty under section 271G of the Income Tax Act. 2. Adequacy of documentation and information maintained by the assessee under section 92D(3) of the Act. 3. Validity of the notice issued under section 92D(3) of the Act. 4. Applicability of section 273B concerning reasonable cause for non-compliance. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of Penalty under Section 271G: The assessee appealed against the imposition of penalties under section 271G, which were confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The penalties were levied for the failure to furnish documents or information required under section 92D(3) concerning international transactions with Associated Enterprises (AEs). The Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) analyzed whether the penalty was legally justified given the documentation provided by the assessee and the nature of the notice issued. 2. Adequacy of Documentation and Information Maintained: The assessee argued that it had maintained and furnished the necessary information as per section 92D(1) and Rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The documentation included the Transfer Pricing study report, financial statements, computation of income, tax audit report, and various agreements with AEs. The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed provided extensive documentation, including responses to specific queries raised by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) during the assessment proceedings. 3. Validity of the Notice Issued under Section 92D(3): The Tribunal scrutinized the nature of the notice issued under section 92D(3). It was observed that the notice was general and did not specify the exact documents required. Citing the Delhi High Court's ruling in CIT vs. Leroy Somer & Controls (India) (P) Ltd., the Tribunal emphasized that a general notice cannot justify the imposition of penalties under section 271G. The notice must explicitly mention the specific documents or information required, which was not the case here. 4. Applicability of Section 273B Concerning Reasonable Cause: The assessee contended that even if there was a default, it was with reasonable cause, and hence, penalties under section 271G should not be imposed as per section 273B. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had made substantive compliance with Rule 10D and had provided all requested information. The Tribunal concluded that the penalty could not be imposed without pointing out specific defects in the documentation submitted by the assessee. Conclusion: The Tribunal found that the facts of the present case were identical to a previous case involving a group concern, where the ITAT had deleted the penalty under similar circumstances. The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently complied with the requirements of Rule 10D and that the general notice issued did not justify the imposition of penalties under section 271G. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and allowed the appeal of the assessee, deleting the penalties. Order: The appeals of the assessee were allowed, and the penalties under section 271G were deleted. The Tribunal's decision was pronounced under ITAT rules 34(4).
|
