TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 516
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....06-07 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the CIT(A) levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act ('the Act') is beyond jurisdiction, bad in law and void ab-initio. 2. That Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ['CIT(A)'] erred on the facts and in law in upholding the action of the assessing officer in levying penalty of Rs. 10,21,255 under section 271(1)(c) ) of the Act in respect of (i) transfer pricing adjustment of Rs. 28,89,032 on the transaction of export of stainless steel coil and (ii) Rs. 1,45,001 with respect to disallowance of donation expense, made in the assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 92CA(3) of Act. 3. That....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gence good faith and, therefore, too, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was leviable. 8. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding that the explanation of the appellant on account export of steel products aggregating to Rs. 28,89,032 was found to be incorrect and, thus, the same tantamount to concealment of income, warranting imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 9. That the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the international transaction of export of stainless steel coils was duly reported as international transaction in the Transfer Pricing study and 3CEB certificate and all information and documents in relation thereto were plac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ting that the penalty proceedings were initiated without recording proper satisfaction in the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act and levy of penalty, therefore, was unlawful and is liable to be dropped. 4. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that penalty was arbitrarily levied @ 100% of income allegedly sought to be evaded, i.e. Rs. 2,47,83,673/- which is not mandated under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act and, therefore, levy of penalty itself was bad in law and was liable to be dropped. 5. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income with respect to transfer pricing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inless steel coils was duly reported as international transaction in the Transfer Pricing study and 3CEB certificate and all information and documents in relation thereto were placed on record and merely for the reason that the transfer pricing adjustment has been made on this account, it cannot be alleged that the appellant furnished inaccurate particulars of income, so as to levy penalty under section 271(1 )(c) of the Act. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and vary the above grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing." 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: Assessee filed its return of income on 23/11/06 for Assessment Year 2006-07 declaring total income of Rs. 83,00,83, 200/-and for Assessment Year....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ils, difference in interest rate on loan charged from associated enterprises, adjustment on account of corporate guarantee given to AE. 8.2. Ld.Counsel at outset submitted that, in quantum proceedings for both years under consideration, this Tribunal set aside addition made on account of transfer pricing adjustment back to Ld.TPO for readjudication, in light of submissions/details filed by assessee. 8.3. Ld.Counsel placed before us orders passed by this Tribunal in quantum proceedings for assessment year 2006-07 and 2007- 08 which has been perused by us. 9. We are therefore inclined to set aside penalty proceedings back to Ld.AO by keeping all contentions open for assessee. The Ld.CIT DR do not object penalty proceedings being set ....