9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 759X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act') for the A.Y. 2016- 17. 2. In this case, a reference u/s 92CA(1) of the Act was received from DCIT(IT)-4(1)(2), Mumbai for determining the arms length price qua international transactions entered into by the Assessee with its Associated Enterprises(AEs) as reported in form 3CEB filed on 30.11.2016. Accordingly notice u/s 92CA(2)/92D(3) of the Act was issued to the Assessee on 18.12.2018 calling for various details and documents maintained in support of the ALP determination of the transactions reported in form No.3CEB. In response to the said notice the Assessee submitted its reply dated 04.01.2019 and claimed that the Assessee Company was in the process of appointing their authorized representative and therefore the Assessee need ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee, however, not being satisfied again sent a reminder vide notice dated 06.09.2019 in response to which the Assessee by filing a letter dated 28.09.2019 reiterated the earlier submissions and requested to drop the proceedings. The Assessee also submitted a copy of TPSR along with this submission. 2.3 The AO though considered the afforested contentions raised by the Assessee, however not being convinced with the same, ultimately levied the penalty of Rs. 98,89,964/- u/s 271G of the Act, by holding as under: "That the details were filed by the Assessee only after 25.03.2019 in response to the notice dated 18.12.2018 issued u/s 92D(3) r.w. rule 10D(1) & 10D(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short 'the Rules'). The Assessee has not deni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olve the Assessee from statutory penal provisions as provided under the Act for noncompliance. A muti-national company like the Assessee which is being managed by qualified tax professionals and non-submission of documents because of non-availability of authorized representative for more than 2 months is at all not convincing. Thus, it is proved that it was not a reasonable cause for non-submission of the requisite documents sought by the TPO vide notice dated 18.12.2018 within a period of 60 days. The Assessee had not furnished all the information/documents as sought by the TPO and also there was not a reasonable cause for failure to comply with the said notice of penalty, hence the penalty of Rs. 98,89,964/- levied by the TPO u/s 271G of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at before 25.03.2019, the Assessee filed no details and therefore if we subtract 60 days from the date of notice dated 18.12.2018 then the default would be 38 days only. It is also a fact that in response to further reminder to the penalty notice u/s 271G of the Act issued on 06.09.2019, the Assessee filed its response along with TPSR on 20.09.2019. In overall consideration, it goes to show that the Assessee has made the compliance after the expiry of statutory period of 60 days, as the Assessee responded to the notice dated 18.12.2018 by filing its response along with part details/documents on 25.03.2019, therefore considering the delay of 38 days as miniscule and the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in totality as the Assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
