2014 (9) TMI 321

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bunal in the impugned order has specifically records and notices that the Transfer Pricing Officer in his order dated 17.10.2008 had accepted and recorded that required documents were submitted. After discussion with the representative of the respondent assessee no adverse conclusion was drawn. No addition was made to the Arm's Length Price on international transactions entered into by the respondent assessee during the period in question. 3. Thus, it is not the case of the revenue that the relevant documents as mandated under Section 92D read with Rule 10D were not furnished to the Transfer Pricing Officer. The question raised is whether there was any delay in submission of the said documents. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 29.03.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a deliberate default of the assessee. Therefore, I am convinced that the assessee had committed default for imposition of penalty u/s, 271 G of the Act. Hence, penalty u/s. 271G of the Act, 1961 leviable in this case is Rs. 1484099/- (2% of 74204992/-). Therefore, penalty of Rs. 1484099 is hereby imposed. This penalty order is being passed with the prior approval of the Addl. CIT, Range-3, New Delhi vide letter No. Addl. CITIR-3/Approval-Penalty/2010-1113244 dated 29.3.2011I. Issue necessary forms." 6. What is clearly discernable from the penalty order is that reference was not made to any particular or specific date by which assessee was required to submit the documents; or whether the same were furnished within 30 days or within the ex....