9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 1365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the DRP for re considering assessee s claim that there was no international transaction of revenue nature between the assessee and the AE in the relevant financial year. Thus, in our considered opinion, when assessee s contention regarding not having any international transaction with the AE is still unresolved and is pending before the DRP, it would not be logical and proper to proceed in the matter of imposition of penalty u/s 271AA and 271BA - The requirement of complying with the provisions of section 92D and 92E of the Act only arises in the event of assessee having any international transaction with the AE. Since, the aforesaid preliminary claim is now pending for decision before the DRP, we are inclined to set aside the impugn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee has not submitted the statutory audit report concerning such international transaction along with the return of income. Therefore, for the purpose of determining the alleged arm's length price of the international transaction, the Assessing Officer made a reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer. The Transfer Pricing Officer vide order dated 29th January 2015, proposed adjustment of ₹ 9,08,60,000. In the draft assessment order passed in pursuance to the order passed by the Transfer Pricing Officer, the Assessing Officer added back the transfer pricing adjustment proposed by Transfer Pricing Officer. Against the draft assessment order, the assessee raised objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). When the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osition of penalty should also be restored back to the Assessing Officer. 4. The learned Departmental Representative, though, relied upon the observations of learned Commissioner (Appeals), however, he submitted that the issues raised in the present appeal can be restored back to the Assessing Officer. 5. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. As could be seen from the facts on record, the genesis of imposition of penalty under section 271AA and 271BA of the Act is on an assumption by the Assessing Officer and the Transfer Pricing Officer that in the relevant previous year the assessee had entered into international transaction with its AE. Therefore, while proposing adjustment to the arm's length ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould not be logical and proper to proceed in the matter of imposition of penalty under section 271AA and 271BA of the Act. The requirement of complying with the provisions of section 92D and 92E of the Act only arises in the event of assessee having any international transaction with the AE. Since, the aforesaid preliminary claim is now pending for decision before the DRP, we are inclined to set aside the impugned orders of learned Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the issue relating to imposition of penalty under section 271AA and 271BA of the Act to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer, if warranted, may initiate proceedings under the aforesaid provisions on the basis of outcome of the decision of the DRP in the quantum proceedin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
