2025 (1) TMI 454 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271G by TPO - as argued TPO had not asked for specific information/data in statutory notice u/s 92D(3) and that it is not the case where the documents were not furnished at all by the assessee and that there was a reasonable cause for delay in furnishing the details/documents - HELD THAT - Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Undercarriage and Tractor Parts (P.) Ltd. Vs. Dispute Resolution Panel 2023 (9) TMI 759 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT wherein the assessee challenged the validity of the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) and the Hon ble Bombay High Court quashed and set aside the directions issued by the Ld. DRP and consequent assessment order. However, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to take cognizance of the said decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court while allowing the penalty appeal of the assessee. Before us, the Revenue has not brought on record any decision of the Higher Forum against the said decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court (supra). Thus, in our considered view, the impugned penalty is not exigible. Consequently, we reject the appeal of the Revenue being devoid of any merits and substance.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment were:

Whether the penalty of Rs. 1,00,53,395/- levied under Section 271G of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) was justified.
Whether the assessee failed to furnish the required documents and information under Section 92D(3) of the Act, justifying the imposition of the penalty.
Whether the principles of natural justice were violated in the process of levying the penalty.
Whether the quashing of the assessment order by the Bombay High Court affects the validity of the penalty proceedings.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Justification for Penalty under Section 271G

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 271G prescribes a penalty for failure to furnish information or documents required under Section 92D(3) to the Assessing Officer or Commissioner (Appeals). The precedents cited include cases that emphasize the necessity for specific requisitions for information before imposing penalties.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court noted that the TPO did not specify the deficiencies in the documentation provided by the assessee. The lack of specific requisitions and the failure to point out deficiencies in the statutory notice were critical factors.
Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee had submitted a transfer pricing study report and other details, which the TPO did not find deficient initially. The TPO's penalty order was based on alleged deficiencies not specified in earlier communications.
Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the principle that penalties under Section 271G require specific requisitions for information, which were absent in this case.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue argued that the assessee failed to provide necessary details. The court found that the TPO did not adequately communicate what was missing, thus undermining the Revenue's position.
Conclusions: The penalty was unjustified due to the lack of specific requisitions and failure to follow principles of natural justice.

Issue 2: Violation of Principles of Natural Justice

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The principles of natural justice require adequate opportunity to be given to the assessee to present their case.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court noted that the TPO issued a statutory notice on 15.10.2018, demanding compliance by 18.10.2018, which was unreasonable given the geographical distance and time constraints.
Key Evidence and Findings: The TPO passed the penalty order before the deadline for the assessee to submit the requested information.
Application of Law to Facts: The court found that the TPO's actions constituted a violation of natural justice.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue's argument that the assessee had sufficient opportunity was not supported by the facts, as the timeline was too short.
Conclusions: The penalty proceedings violated natural justice principles, as the assessee was not given a fair opportunity to comply.

Issue 3: Impact of Quashed Assessment Order

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The validity of penalty proceedings is contingent upon the underlying assessment order.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court considered the Bombay High Court's quashing of the assessment order as a critical factor that nullified the basis for the penalty.
Key Evidence and Findings: The Bombay High Court quashed the assessment order due to procedural deficiencies, impacting the penalty's validity.
Application of Law to Facts: The court concluded that without a valid assessment order, the penalty proceedings could not stand.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue did not provide any higher court ruling overturning the Bombay High Court's decision.
Conclusions: The penalty was invalidated by the quashing of the assessment order.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "The statutory notice was issued only on 15.10.2018 and seeking compliance by 18.10.2018 is a gross violation of principle of natural justice."
Core Principles Established: Penalties under Section 271G require specific requisitions for information, and natural justice principles must be adhered to. A penalty cannot stand if the underlying assessment order is quashed.
Final Determinations on Each Issue: The penalty under Section 271G was unjustified due to procedural deficiencies and the quashing of the assessment order.

In conclusion, the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, and the penalty imposed under Section 271G was deemed invalid. The judgment emphasized the necessity for clear communication of deficiencies, adherence to natural justice, and the impact of quashed assessment orders on penalty proceedings.

← Previous Next →