TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he had substantially complied with the said letter of TPO since 12 out of 16 items were filed - the allegation of TPO that it had failed to comply with the notice was incorrect – Held that:- If the Revenue alleges that there has been failure of the assessee with regard to production of any of the record, it was required to point out which record it had failed to produce and whether such record was one which was prescribed under Section 92D(1) to be maintained by an assessee in respect of the international transactions entered into by it - was not a fit case for levy of penalty under Section 271G of the Act. Ld. CIT(Appeals) was justified in deleting such penalty. No interference is required - I T Appeal No. 544(Mds.) of 2011 - - - Dated:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Based on the above observations of the TPO, A.O. was of the opinion that assessee was liable for penalty under Section 271G of the Act. Assessee was put on notice in this regard. Reply of the assessee was that it had filed the required information before the TPO on 24th December, 2008 and such information covered 12 items out of 16 items requisitioned in the notice. As per the assessee, it was the initial year of its operations and it had no experience regarding transfer pricing regulations. As per the assessee, it had made every endeavour to file the required records within the time allowed. However, A.O. was of the opinion that ignorance of law was not an excuse. He proceeded to levy penalty under Section 271G the sum equivalent to 2% on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty under Section 271G of the Act and deleted the penalty imposed by the A.O. 4. Now before us, learned D.R., strongly assailing the order of ld. CIT(Appeals), submitted that Section 271G clearly gave power to the Assessing Officer to levy penalty where assessee had entered into international transaction and had failed to furnish documents or information required under sub-section (3) of Section 92D of the Act. As per learned D.R., the TPO had issued notice to the assessee on 25.11.2008 and such notice was nothing but a notice issued under Section 92D(3) of the Act. According to learned D.R., assessee had admittedly not furnished the information required within 30 days period under Section 92D(3) of the Act. Therefore, levy of pena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Sub-section (3) of Section 92D reads as under:- "(3) The Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) may, in the course of any proceeding under this Act, require any person who has entered into an international transaction to furnish any information or document in respect thereof, as may be prescribed under sub-section (1), within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a notice issued in this regard : Provided that the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) may, on an application made by such person, extend the period of thirty days by a further period not exceeding thirty days." The question here is whether the letter issued by the TPO mentioned supra can be considered as a notice under Section 92D(3) of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
