2021 (1) TMI 1286

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....7, New Delhi affirming the penalty order dated 27.06.2012 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), qua the assessment year 2008-09 on the grounds inter alia that :- "1. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) CCIT(A)')/Ld. AO is bad in law. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, while acknowledging that the assessment proceedings undertaken by the Ld. AO were not in accordance' with the scheme of Section 144C of the Act and considering that the assessment order giving effect to DRP directions was not passed within the permitted time period, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....isfied in the present case and does not justify a levy of penalty. a) That the Ld. AO was grossly in error in not appreciating that all the necessary constituents of Section 92C of the Act were satisfied in the present case and no grounds existed for levy of penalty. 6. That the Ld. AO grossly erred on facts and in law in concluding that the appellant had furnished inaccurate particulars of its income. a) That the Ld. AO grossly failed to bring any material on record, which could establish that the appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income except reiterating the adjustment recommended by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in l....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e arms' length price of the international transaction. 11. That the Ld. AO grossly erred on facts and in law in levying penalty under section 271 (l)(c) of the Act without establishing any mens rea on the part of the appellant without which penalty could not have been levied. 12. The Ld. AO have grossly erred by disregarding judicial pronouncements in India in levying penalty." 2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are : On the basis of assessment order framed u/s 143(3) on 28.12.2011 at an income of Rs.9,29,74,270/-/- for Assessment Year 2008-09 by making additions of Rs.8,38,57,011/- & Rs.85,51,748/- on account of arm's length adjustment on account of IT Enabled Services and arm's le....