9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 321X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 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. - ITA 440/2014 - - - Dated: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... res turnover included international transactions amounting to ₹ 74.20 Crores. Penalty order records that the Transfer Pricing Officer by order under Section 92CA(3) had recommended that since the respondent assessee had failed to furnish information and documents under Section 92D, the Assessing Officer shall impose penalty under Section 271G of the Act. 4. The assessee had filed a reply stating that documents prescribed under Rule 10D were filed and placed on record before the Transfer Pricing Officer and penalty should not be imposed and in fact should not have been initiated. 5. The Assessing Officer rejected the said contention observing as under:- The submission of the assessee has been considered and found to be unac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 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 said details and, therefore, shows lack of application of mind. Transfer Pricing Officer had indicated that the Assessing Officer might initiate proceedings under Section 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 Assessing Officer, as has been observed in the first part at the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
