9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 611 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s. 271G - international transactions during the year with its AE and benchmarked the same using TNMM method in its Transfer Pricing Study which has been accepted by Ld. TPO - assessee did not furnish segmental profitability under the two segments owing to inherent nature of assessee's business - HELD THAT - As practically difficult to maintain the details as called for by Ld. TPO. If the Ld. Transfer Pricing Officer was not satisfied with the benchmarking of the assessee under TNMM, nothing prevented him from rejecting assessee' benchmarking and proceed to determine the ALP independently by applying any one of the prescribed methods. The blame for failure on the part of the Transfer Pricing Officer to determine the arm's length price cannot be fastened with the assessee. Similar issue of penalty u/s. 271G for diamond industry has been adjudicated in assessee's favor in various decisions of this Tribunal. The coordinate bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of D. Navinchandra Exports (P.) Ltd. 2017 (11) TMI 1307 - ITAT MUMBAI held that considering the practical difficulties in furnishing the segment wise details of AE segment and non-AE segment transactions in diamond industry, no penalty under Sec. 271G could justifiably be imposed for failure to furnish the said information.
Issues:
- Appeal against deletion of penalty under section 271G by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for Assessment Year 2012-13. Analysis: 1. The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal arose from the deletion of a penalty of ?111.82 Lacs imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271G for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had deleted the penalty in a previous order dated 23/07/2019. 2. The Senior Departmental Representative (SR DR) supported the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer, citing the factual background. On the other hand, the Authorized Representative (AR) argued that due to the nature of the business, the requested details could not be provided, justifying the deletion of the penalty. The AR also referred to favorable decisions of the Tribunal based on similar circumstances. 3. After hearing both parties and considering the case laws presented, the Tribunal proceeded with its adjudication on the matter. 4. The penalty was imposed as the assessee, engaged in manufacturing and marketing of diamonds/jewelry, had international transactions with its Associated Enterprises (AE). The Transfer Pricing Officer sought segmental profitability details, which the assessee found impractical to provide. Although the transactions were accepted to be at Arm's Length, the penalty under section 271G was initiated for the failure to furnish the requested details. 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) relied on a previous Tribunal order and deleted the penalty. This decision led the revenue to appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. 6. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had conducted international transactions with its AE, benchmarked using the TNMM method, accepted by the Transfer Pricing Officer. The penalty was solely based on the failure to provide segmental profitability details, which was practically challenging due to the business nature. The Tribunal emphasized that if the Transfer Pricing Officer was not satisfied, they could have independently determined the Arm's Length Price. 7. Previous Tribunal decisions in the diamond industry context supported the assessee's position, highlighting the practical difficulties in furnishing segment-wise details. Citing various cases, the Tribunal found no fault with the Commissioner's decision to delete the penalty and dismissed the appeal. 8. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal on October 1, 2021.
|
