https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83994 The assessee, a foreign-based company, initially failed to comply with the notice u/s 92D(3) within the statutory period of 60 days, responding on 25.03.2019 after a delay of 38 days. However, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) considered the delay as minuscule and the reasons for non-compliance as bona fide and unintentional, given the peculiar circumstances of the assessee being a foreign entity and in the process of appointing a new authorized representative. The ITAT held that the penalty u/s 271G for non-compliance should be deleted, accepting the assessee's reasons for the inadvertent delay as reasonable. Consequently, the assessee's appeal against the penalty was allowed. en-us Sat, 14 Dec 2024 07:58:28 +0530 Sat, 14 Dec 2024 07:58:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83994 The assessee, a foreign-based company, initially failed to comply with the notice u/s 92D(3) within the statutory period of 60 days, responding on 25.03.2019 after a delay of 38 days. However, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) considered the delay as minuscule and the reasons for non-compliance as bona fide and unintentional, given the peculiar circumstances of the assessee being a foreign entity and in the process of appointing a new authorized representative. The ITAT held that the penalty u/s 271G for non-compliance should be deleted, accepting the assessee's reasons for the inadvertent delay as reasonable. Consequently, the assessee's appeal against the penalty was allowed. Highlights Income Tax Sat, 14 Dec 2024 07:58:28 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=83994