2016 (4) TMI 214 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal rejects Revenue's penalty appeal, citing assessee's good faith and procedural fairness

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Symantic Software Solution Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly known as Veritas Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd.)

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Symantic Software Solution Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly known as Veritas Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd.) - TMI Issues Involved:1. Imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for transfer pricing adjustments.2. Imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) for disallowance under section 40(a)(ia).Detailed Analysis:1. Imposition of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for Transfer Pricing Adjustments:The Department appealed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) which deleted the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2006-07. The assessee, an Indian company, engaged in providing marketing support services to its Associate Enterprise (A.E), had adopted the Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM) for benchmarking its international transactions. The assessee selected 12 comparables with an average margin of 19.70%, while its margin was 0.87%. The assessee voluntarily made an adjustment of Rs. 92,15,556 to the arm's length price. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) computed the margin of comparables based on current year data, resulting in an upward adjustment of Rs. 2,54,27,043. The Assessing Officer (AO) incorporated this adjustment in the draft assessment order and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c).The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the difference in arm's length price was due to the use of multiple year data by the assessee and current year data by the TPO. The assessee could not have used current year data as it was not available in the public domain at the time of filing the return. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the computation by the assessee was in good faith and with due diligence, hence no penalty was imposable under Explanation 7 to section 271(1)(c).The Department contended that the assessee's adjustment proved the price was not at arm's length and argued that the margin should be computed based on current year data as per rule 10B(4). The assessee countered that current year data was not available at the time of filing the return, and the penalty could not be imposed for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.The Tribunal noted that the TPO accepted the method and comparables selected by the assessee, and the only dispute was the data used for computing margins. The Tribunal found that the assessee acted in good faith and with due diligence, and all relevant information was provided. The Tribunal also considered that the High Court admitted a substantial question of law on the transfer pricing adjustment, indicating the issue was debatable. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Nayan Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty.2. Imposition of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia):The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the AO did not initiate penalty proceedings for the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) in the draft assessment order. The AO initiated the penalty only in the final assessment order after the DRP's directions. The Tribunal held that as per section 144C, the final assessment order should conform to the draft assessment order and the DRP's directions. If the AO did not initiate penalty proceedings in the draft assessment order, he could not do so in the final assessment order.The Tribunal emphasized that the final assessment order is to implement the DRP's directions without further hearing the assessee. Initiating penalty proceedings at the final assessment stage would put the assessee in a precarious position, as they might not contest the addition before the DRP, believing no penalty would be imposed. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, finding no infirmity in it.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, confirming that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) was imposable for the transfer pricing adjustments and the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia). The Tribunal's decision was based on the good faith and due diligence of the assessee, the debatable nature of the transfer pricing issue, and procedural fairness in penalty initiation.