9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 432X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ansactions of ₹ 1,31,82,960/- was imposed. Penalty cannot be imposed unless and until the Assessing Officer is sure and certain that there was a violation. Ambiguity or doubt in the mind of the Assessing Officer does not justify imposition of penalty, when the actus reas itself is not proved and established. The penalty order is self contradictory. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the penalty, which order has been affirmed by the Tribunal. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) specifically recorded a finding that the documentation was filed by the assessee within the extended period of 30 days, i.e., within 60 days, and hence, no penalty was leviable. - Revenue has taken a different stand, which was possibly not take ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Transfer Pricing Officer. The said notice issued by the Transfer Pricing Officer is dated 19th March, 2007. The respondent-assessee thereafter had filed an application seeking adjournment on 11th April, 2007 and the proceedings were adjourned for 8th May, 2007 and then to 18th May, 2007. The Tribunal has accepted the finding of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that the assessee had filed transfer pricing report along with Form No.3CEB on 16th May, 2007. Thus, the relevant documents and papers as per the mandate of Section 92D(3) of the Act were complied and filed within two months from the date of issue of notice. The Tribunal has also referred to Section 92D of the Act, which requires the assessee to furnish documents maintained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay, 2007 addressed to the Transfer Pricing Officer, which was filed before him, had not been corroborated by the Transfer Pricing Officer. Silence on the part of the Transfer Pricing Officer was read in negative and against the assessee. The assumption drawn is not justified and a mere surmise. The exact reasoning given by the Assessing Officer to impose penalty is reproduced below:- Assessee's reply has been considered but found not convincing. On enquiry from the office of TPO, it is gathered that the assessee was allowed adjournment upto 18.5.2007 and on 18.5.200 a letter has been filed enclosing therewith return of income with audited balance sheet P L account. Further perusal of TPO's reply revealed that there was no ment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Rules, penalty @ 2% of the value of international transactions of ₹ 1,31,82,960/- was imposed. Penalty cannot be imposed unless and until the Assessing Officer is sure and certain that there was a violation. Ambiguity or doubt in the mind of the Assessing Officer does not justify imposition of penalty, when the actus reas itself is not proved and established. The penalty order is self contradictory. 5. It was in these circumstances that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the penalty, which order has been affirmed by the Tribunal. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) specifically recorded a finding that the documentation was filed by the assessee within the extended period of 30 days, i.e., within 60 days, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
