Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (12) TMI 456

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... aived. We do not find it necessary to intervene in the decision of the appeal. Decided against revenue. - SHRI PRASHANT MAHARSHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Assessee: Shri K.A. Vaidyalingan For the Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane(CIT - DR) ORDER PER ANIKESH BANERJEE, J.M: This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax(A)-57, Mumbai [for brevity, Ld.CIT(A) ] passed U/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act ), for Assessment Year 2012-13, date of order 27.02.2024. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Transfer Pricing)-3(1)(1), Mumbai(in short, the A.O. ) passed under section 271G of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s 271G of the Act, on the incorrect premise that, when there is no adjustment made in the Arm s Length Price, penalty so imposed is not justified, without appreciating that penalty u/s 271G is imposable for failure to furnish any such information or documents pertaining to any international transaction or specified domestic transaction as, required by the TPO u/s 92D(3), and not only when Adjustment is made to the Arm s Length Price, as penalty in respect of ALP adjustment is imposable in deserving cases under other sections of the Act. 5. Whether on facts circumstances of case in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty for the reason that no adjustment was made to the ALP, falling to note that by not producing the material docume .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d on the appeal order, the revenue filed an appeal before us. 3. The Ld.AR first argued and filed a written submission which is kept in the record. The Ld.AR placed that after the TP study, there is no adjustment made by the TPO and that the addition was made only under section 14A and section 36(1)(iii) of the Act under the domestic tax. 4. The Ld. DR relied on the impugned penalty order and argued vehemently. 5. We heard the rival submission and considered the documents available in the record. For understanding the fact, we make a quick look in section 92D(3) of the Act. Maintenance, keeping and furnishing of information and document by certain persons. 92D. (1) Every person, xxxxxxxxxxxx (2) xxxxxxxxxxx (3) The Assessing Officer or the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... During appellate proceedings, the appellant has submitted that on similar facts, the TPO had levied penalty u/s. 271G of the Act for A.Y.2011-12. The CIT(A)-57, Mumbai vide order dated 31.01.2017 had deleted the penalty and on further appeal by the revenue, the ITAT, Mumbai vide order dated 27.12.2018 has dismissed the appeal of the revenue. Therefore, the facts and circumstances of levy of penalty u/s. 271G for A.Y.2011-12 being identical to that for AY.2012-13, the penalty levied u/s. 271G for A.Y 2012-13 should also be deleted. The appellant provided copies of orders of CIT(A) and ITAT for AY. 2011-12. 5.3.4 The order of the CIT(A) against the order of levy of penalty u/s.271G for AY. 2011- 12 and also the order of ITAT Mumbai for AY. 20 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ne through the orders of the authorities below and found that the CIT(A) has deleted the penalty by observing that keeping in view nature of diamond business in which the Assessee is engaged, it has sustainably complied with the requirement of filing documents with respect to segmental amount relating to transactions with AE non-AEs for determination of arms length price of international transaction. Accordingly, the CIT(A) observed that when there is no adjustment made in the arms length price, penalty so imposed is not justified. The CIT(A) has also relied on various judicial pronouncement having similar facts, wherein penalty has been deleted u/s 271G of the Act, when no adjustment in arms length price was made. Detailed findings recorde .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates