Tribunal affirms CIT(A)'s decision on penalty under Income Tax Act 1961

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the penalty under section 271 G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2005-06. It was determined that no specific requisition under section 92D(3) was issued and not complied with, as required for the penalty to be levied. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to legal precedents and the necessity of a valid requisition to avoid imposing undue burdens on taxpayers. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the CIT(A)'s findings.

---

---

Issues Involved:
Challenge to correctness of CIT(A)'s order on penalty under section 271 G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2005-06 based on the requirement of specific information under section 92D(3).

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Challenge to CIT(A)'s Order
The Assessing Officer challenged the correctness of the CIT(A)'s order regarding the penalty under section 271 G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2005-06. The appellant contended that the CIT(A) erred in law by holding that the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) did not request specific information from the assessee as required under section 92D(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and in deleting the penalty based on this ground.

Issue 2: Requirement of Specific Requisition
The key point of contention was whether a specific requisition under section 92D(3) was necessary for imposing a penalty under section 271 G. The representatives agreed that there was no evidence on record to show that any specific requisition was made under section 92D(3) which was not complied with. The CIT(A) had found that the penalty was initiated under section 271 G for non-reporting in Form 3 CEB, but it was clarified that the scope of section 271 G does not cover non-reporting in Form 3 CEB.

Issue 3: Precedent and Legal Interpretation
Referring to a precedent set by a coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Cargill India (P.) Ltd., it was established that a specific requisition under section 92D(3) must be issued and not complied with for the penalty under section 271 G to be levied. It was emphasized that the Assessing Officer or CIT (Appeals) can only require prescribed information under section 92D(3) and not non-prescribed information. The judgment highlighted the importance of the application of mind before issuing notices under section 92D(3) to avoid imposing additional burdens on taxpayers.

Conclusion:
Based on the legal interpretation and precedent, the Tribunal found that there was no specific requisition under section 92D(3) that had not been complied with in this case. Therefore, the penalty under section 271 G could not be imposed. The Tribunal approved the CIT(A)'s findings and declined to interfere in the matter, ultimately dismissing the appeal.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the legal intricacies surrounding the requirement of specific information under section 92D(3) for the imposition of penalties under section 271 G of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

---