TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 39
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for AY 2009-10 in ITA No.6914/M/2025 has raised following grounds of appeal: - 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) erred by deleting the penalty levied under Section 271G of the Income Tax Act, 1961, solely on the premise that the underlying quantum Transfer Pricing adjustment was deleted, without appreciating that the said penalty operates independently of the final outcome of the assessment proceedings or the quantum of adjustment. 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT A erred in not appreciating that the penalty under Section 271G was correctly imposed because the assessee failed to furnish the prescribed informa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... heard had record perused. The learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that grounds of appeal raised by Revenue is covered by the decision of Tribunal in assesses own case, wherein the additions made in the assessment order, on the adjustment suggested by Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) has already been deleted by the ld CIT(A), which has been upheld by Tribunal in ITA No. 4353/Mum/2025 dated 19.01.2026. Further, various benches of Tribunal has held that when the assessee furnished all the particulars on the basis of which AO could determine arm's length price of the said transaction, no penalty could be levied under section 271G. There was sufficient and reasonable cause for not maintaining the record as required ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cord. 5. The ld. AR while invited our attention on the order of Tribunal in quantum assessment, which is drafted by one of us, submits that case of assessee was reopened under section 147 on the basis of information that Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) investigated that the assessee group involved in over invoicing 30 to 40% in respect of imports made through Global Supplier FZE UAE. On the basis of such information the case of assessee was reopened. The ld AR of the assessee submits that Principal Commissioner of Custom (Adjudication), Mumbai also initiated proceedings under Customs Act. However, The Custom Excises and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in its order dated 03.04.2025 has set aside the order of Principal Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mond (P) Ltd (165 taxmann.com 608) 6. On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue supported the order of lower authorities. 5. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. We find that there is no much dispute on the facts. We find that assessee is in the business of generation of electricity. The assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2009-10 declaring income of Rs. 1.14 crore. The case was selected for scrutiny. Initially, the return was processed under Section 143(1). Subsequently, case was reopened under Section 147. Case was reopened on the basis of information received from DRI, Mumbai with re....