60-day deadline for furnishing documents under s.92D(3) starts on receipt of notice; s.271G penalty deleted
ITAT upheld the appellate order, holding the 60-day period for furnishing documents under s.92D(3) runs from receipt of the notice issued under s.92D(3). The tribunal agreed that s.92D(iii) would be redundant if reckoned otherwise. Penalty under s.271G was deleted because no transfer-pricing adjustment was made by the TPO, so no tax evasion. Further, delay beyond 60 days was excused under s.273B as reasonable cause due to change of tax consultant and staff; accordingly the CIT(A)'s relief was upheld.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether the sixty-day period for furnishing information/documents for transfer pricing purposes (relevant to penalty under section 271G) is to be computed from the date of notice issued under section 92CA(2) or from the date of notice issued under section 92D(3).
2. Whether penalty under section 271G can be levied where the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) has made no transfer pricing adjustment and the assessee's reported arm's length price has been accepted (i.e., whether absence of TP adjustment negates tax evasion or justifies deletion of penalty).
3. Whether delay in furnishing information/documents called for under transfer pricing notices constitutes a "reasonable cause" under section 273B sufficient to excuse non-compliance and mandate deletion of penalty under section 271G (with specific facts: change of tax consultant, change of employees, concurrent statutory compliances).
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Computation of the sixty-day period - whether from section 92CA(2) notice or section 92D(3) notice
Legal framework: Section 92CA(1)/(2)/(3) governs reference of matters to the TPO and issuance of notices for basic/general information; section 92D(3) calls for specific information/documents; rule 10D and related rules prescribe documentation maintenance; section 271G and section 92D(3) interplay for penalty for failure to furnish information within prescribed time.
Precedent treatment: The Tribunal/CIT(A) relied on multiple authorities interpreting the statutory scheme to require initial notice under section 92CA(2) for basic information and, only if further specifics are required, a subsequent notice under section 92D(3); cited decisions support computation of the 60-day period from notice under section 92D(3).
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court reasoned that the legislative scheme envisages a two-stage exercise: (i) notice under section 92CA(2) to obtain general/basic information; (ii) if TPO is not satisfied, a specific requisition under section 92D(3). Counting the sixty days from the earlier section 92CA(2) notice would render section 92D(3) superfluous and frustrate the sequential purpose of the statutory provisions. The statutory safety valve allowing AO/CIT(A) to extend the 30-day period (and further 60 days) aligns with computing the period from the specific 92D(3) requisition.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - period for furnishing the required information for the purpose of penalty under section 271G is to be computed from the date of the notice issued under section 92D(3), not from the earlier section 92CA(2) notice. This holding is essential to the decision.
Conclusion: The sixty-day period is to be reckoned from the date of the notice issued under section 92D(3). The TPO/AO's computation from the section 92CA(2) notice was contrary to the statutory scheme and therefore quashed on this point.
Issue 2: Applicability of section 271G penalty where no TP adjustment is made by the TPO
Legal framework: Section 271G prescribes penalty for failure to furnish information/documents in relation to international transactions as required under section 92D(3); underlying purpose of TP provisions and related penalties (introduced to curb tax avoidance) informs interpretation.
Precedent treatment: The appellate authority relied upon judicial pronouncements holding that where there is no transfer pricing adjustment and the assessee's ALP is accepted, imposition of penalty under section 271G may be unjustified because the punitive purpose (curbing tax avoidance/evasion) is not served.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court accepted that section 271G was introduced to curb tax avoidance and that absence of any adjustment by the TPO indicates absence of tax evasion. Given that the TPO made no ALP adjustment after receiving submissions, the punitive rationale for imposing a percentage-based penalty on the value of international transactions is weakened. The Tribunal considered that penal sanction in such factual matrix would be disproportionate and unjustified.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where the TPO makes no transfer pricing adjustment and the transactions are accepted at the arm's length price determined by the assessee, imposition of penalty under section 271G is not justified. This was a central basis for deletion of penalty.
Conclusion: Penalty under section 271G was rightly deleted on the ground that no TP adjustment was made and the assessee's transactions were accepted at ALP; thus, the element of tax evasion/avoidance underlying the penalty was absent.
Issue 3: Whether reasonable cause under section 273B excuses delayed compliance with section 92D(3) requisition
Legal framework: Section 273B exempts imposition of penalty if failure to furnish information/documents is proved to be due to reasonable cause; rule 10D(4) contemplates carry-forward of documentation where conditions (no significant change in nature/terms/assumptions) are met.
Precedent treatment: Authorities relied upon by the Tribunal and CIT(A) recognize that bona fide reasons such as change of tax consultant, change in key personnel, concurrent statutory compliance pressures, and genuine inability to collate complex TP data can constitute reasonable cause for delay.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined the factual matrix: change of tax consultants between June-October 2015, new consultants requiring time to inspect records, change in employees/executives, and pressing statutory/compliance obligations in November 2015. Even assuming the limitation period began earlier, the Tribunal found these reasons sufficient to constitute reasonable cause under section 273B. The Court also rejected the reliance on rule 10D(4) by the assessee where material changes (e.g., significant change in interest rates and terms) negated entitlement to rely on earlier documentation - but this rejection did not undermine the reasonable cause finding. The Tribunal balanced the procedural requirement with practical impediments and found the assessee's inability to furnish within the time explainable and non-culpable.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - on the facts, change of consultant and other operational/compliance pressures constituted reasonable cause under section 273B, justifying deletion of penalty under section 271G. This finding is dispositive in relation to the penalty in this appeal.
Conclusion: The delay in furnishing TP documents was sufficiently explained by reasonable cause (change of consultants, change in personnel, competing statutory compliance), and therefore penalty under section 271G could be and was deleted on this ground as well.
Cross-references and Combined Conclusion
Cross-reference: Issues 1-3 are interrelated - correct computation of the limitation period (Issue 1) affects whether default occurred; absence of TP adjustment (Issue 2) speaks to the punitive objective of section 271G; and reasonable cause (Issue 3) provides independent statutory defense against penalty. The Tribunal upheld the appellate findings on all three counts.
Final conclusion: The Tribunal upheld deletion of penalty under section 271G by holding (i) the sixty-day period must be counted from notice under section 92D(3), (ii) penalty unjustified where no TP adjustment was made and transactions were accepted at ALP, and (iii) factual circumstances (change of consultant, employee changes and concurrent compliance) constituted reasonable cause under section 273B, warranting deletion of the penalty. The appeal by Revenue was dismissed.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
