9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 768X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not substantially interested. It is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of machine tools as well as components and accessories. On 24.09.2008, the assessee had filed its return and declared loss of ₹ 8,80,33,005/-. On 18.09.2009, the return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act leading to NIL demand. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer finalized scrutiny assessment on 29.12.2010 and added an amount of ₹ 11,65,455/- re balance of the sundry creditors in question. While passing the above said assessment order, the Assessing Officer observed that since the assessee had entered into international transactions with its associate enterprises, it was required to maintain prescribed information and documents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #8377; 12,11,70,581/- (which includes transactions with associated enterprises) but in the Form 3CEB furnished on 31/12/2010, the transaction with Associate enterprises is pegged at ₹ 15.02,89,194/-. But reference could not be made to the Transfer Pricing Officer as the form 3CEB was filed after the completion of assessment on 31.12.2010. Since the nature and quantum of transaction were not available with the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer could not source any document are record from the assessee company as stated in Rule 92D(3), and compute the Arms Length Price. What the assessee had stated in their note on transfer pricing submitted on 28/12/201.0 is detailing the nature of transaction and copy of invoices ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Mum) titled ACIT v. Smith and Newphew Healthcare P. Ltd. In the light thereof it prayed for acceptance of the appeal. 5. Opposing this, the Revenue has chosen to draw strong support from the order of the CIT(A) under challenge. Further, the case law cited by the assessee is sought to be distinguished on the ground that the facts in question are entirely different since in that case, the assessee concerned had duly furnished all details in the assessment proceedings. Accordingly, the DR has prayed for confirming the CIT(A) s order. 6. We have heard both parties in detail, perused assessment order, penalty order, CIT(A) s order as well as case law cited. Admitted facts are that in the assessment proceedings, the assessee had declared ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to keep and maintain its documents in respect of international transactions. A glance of the penalty order as well as the order passed by the CIT(A) under challenge makes it abundantly clear that the fault of the assessee is that the relevant record (supra) had been furnished in latter in point of time after passing the assessment order (supra). In our considered opinion, this is not failure of the assessee to keep and maintain the record. Rather, it is a case of not producing the record before assessment s finalization which is not covered by the tenor of the provisions. In other words, once the assessee produced the relevant record even after the finalization of the assessment, it cannot be punished under section 271AA of the Act as in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
