TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 957
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of appeal:- 1. That the order passed by learned CIT(Appeal) confirming penalty of Rs. 28500100/-imposed by the assessing officer under Section 271G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad in law. 2. That the learned CIT(Appeals) erred on facts and in law in upholding penalty imposed by the assessing officer under Section 271G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the penalty of Rs. 28500100/-levied by the assessing officer u/s 271G is erroneous and the CIT(A) should have cancelled the same. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the penalty imposed by the assessing officer u/s 271G of Income Tax Act, 1961 and confirmed by CIT(A) is without jurisdiction and bad-in-law an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....within prescribed time with the TP proceedings does not give immunity to the assessee from penalty u/s 271G of the Act. Hence, Ld AO levied penalty @2% of Rs. 1425005155/- of international transactions amounting to Rs. 2,85,00,102/-. The assesse carried the matter before the ld CIT(A), who in turn confirmed the penalty. While confirming the penalty ld CIT(A) held that collective information as prescribed under Rule 10D is called TP report and assessee has not complied with the provisions of section 92D read with Rule 10D in prescribed time. It was further mentioned that permission for extension of time was also sought only after receipt of show cause notice for penalty. He observed that no doubt in the present case the transactions are at A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t shall" and therefore there is no justification in the levy of penalty as it is not an automatic consequences. vi. In any way there is a reasonable cause for the not filing TP study report submitting that it is not a specified document under Rule 10D. he submitted that there is a reasonable cause in submission of assessee that the TP study report is not a specified document under Rule 10D. vii. He further relied on Circular No.12 dated 23th August 2001 of CBDT as well as plethora of judgments 6. ld DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities vehemently argued that the assessee has not submitted the details within specified time limit, the penalty has been rightly levied by the AO and confirmed by ld CIT(A). 7. We have carefully co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....documentation prescribed under Rule 10D) in time. Provisions of Rule 10D(1) prescribes information from Sl. No.(a) to (m) required to be kept and maintained by the assessee with respect to its international transactions. Ld. TPO issued letter dated 25.10.2011 asking various information most of which are referred in Rule 10D(1). In response to this assessee submitted some information vide letter25.11.2011 and some information explanation vide letter 30.12.2011. balance information were also provided by letter dated 16th January 2012. During the course of assessment proceedings assessee also submitted a TP study report prepared by its Chartered Accountant M/s. Awdesh Bansal and Co.copy of which is also placed in the Paper Book at Sl. No.50 to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted the required information before that date. Merely because the assesse has not sought extension of time earlier the penalty u/s 271G cannot be imposed upon the assessee. Before us the ld AR relied on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case CIT Vs. Jonson Mathey India Pvt. Ltd. 54 Taxmann.com 406, wherein an identical facts and circumstances the penalty u/s 271G has been deleted. The Hon'ble High Court has noted that the TPO did not interfere and make adjustment to the international transaction therefore it can be inferred that as per documentation filed no addition was required. Hon'ble High Court held as under:- 8. Further, the ld AR has also relied on the order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Bumi Hiway Pvt. Lt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation is also not in the order of ld. TPO or AO. Similarly Hon'ble Delhi High court in case of CIT Vs. Leroy Somer and Controls India pvt. Ltd. 37 Taxmann.com 407 has held that where there is general and substantive compliance of the provisions of Rule 10D it is sufficient. Identically in the case of the Assessee there is a substantial compliance. Honorable high court has further held that "Thus, indicating the documentation/information may be floating, transient and changeable. Constant assimilation may be required. Besides, data/information can also vary. The Tribunal has rightly concluded that with such a broad rule, which requires documentation and information voluminous and virtually unlimited, section 271G has to be interpreted reaso....