2020 (7) TMI 493 - AT - Income Tax

Tax Appeals Allowed, Penalties Deleted for AY 2007-08

Kaybee Private Limited Versus ITO-10 (1) (3), Mumbai

The Tribunal allowed both appeals, directing the assessing officer to delete the penalties under sections 271AA and 271BA for Assessment Year 2007-08. ... Penalty u/s 271AA and 271BA - TP adjustment - Failure to provide or maintain specific Information / Documents - relationship between the assessee and the KEPL AND alleged international transaction between them - HELD THAT:- In quantum appeals before the Tribunal in [2020 (3) TMI 413 - ITAT MUMBAI] the Tribunal held that the assessee and KEPL Singapore is not associated enterprises (AE). It was held that no arms length price adjustment could be made on the transaction between assessee and KEPL. As the assessee is not associated enterprises of KEPTL for the year under consideration, we are of the view that when the very basis of the foundation of impugned penalties has been set aside, thus, the penalty order would also not survive, therefore we direct the assessing officer to delete the penalty under section 271AA and 271BA, levied - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:1. Validity of penalty orders passed under section 271AA and 271BA for Assessment Year 2007-08.2. Whether the penalty orders meet the mandatory jurisdictional requirements of the law.3. Applicability of penalty under section 271AA and 271BA.4. Whether the Appellant and Kaybee Exim Pte. Ltd., Singapore are associated enterprises (AE).5. Compliance with documentation requirements under section 92E of the Act.6. Calculation of penalty under section 271AA.Issue 1: Validity of penalty orders under section 271AA and 271BAThe appeal challenged the penalty orders passed under sections 271AA and 271BA for Assessment Year 2007-08. The Appellant contended that the penalty orders were invalid due to procedural irregularities in the show cause notice and lack of specific information in the penalty orders. The Appellant argued that the penalty orders did not meet the mandatory jurisdictional requirements of the law.Issue 2: Compliance with documentation requirements under section 92E of the ActThe Appellant raised concerns about the non-maintenance of documentation under section 92E of the Act, citing a bonafide belief that the provisions of section 92 were not applicable to the transactions with Kaybee Exim Pte. Ltd., Singapore. The Appellant argued that they had a reasonable cause for non-maintenance of documentation and fell within the ambit of section 273B of the Act.Issue 3: Applicability of penalty under section 271AA and 271BAThe Appellant contested the imposition of penalties under sections 271AA and 271BA, emphasizing that they had furnished required documents and evidence to demonstrate compliance with the law. The Appellant argued that the penalty calculations were incorrect and should be based on the actual transaction amount rather than the transfer pricing adjustment.Issue 4: Whether the Appellant and Kaybee Exim Pte. Ltd., Singapore are associated enterprises (AE)The Tribunal determined that the Appellant and Kaybee Exim Pte. Ltd., Singapore were not associated enterprises based on a previous decision. This finding led to the conclusion that no arms-length price adjustment could be made on the transactions between the two entities, rendering the penalty orders invalid.ConclusionThe Tribunal allowed both appeals, directing the assessing officer to delete the penalties under sections 271AA and 271BA. The decision was based on the finding that the Appellant and Kaybee Exim Pte. Ltd., Singapore were not associated enterprises, leading to the invalidation of the penalty orders.