9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1008X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ground of the appeal is "Whether ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of penalty under section 271AA of the Act of Rs. 4870467/"-, rest of the grounds are argumentative in nature. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a foreign company engaged in providing services for manufacturing and selling FMCO products. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that assessee had international transaction as reported in Form No. 3CEB. Accordingly, a reference was made to TPO for computation of ALP in relation to international transaction. The TPO passed order u/s 92CA(3) and accepted the ALP in respect of international transaction. However, the TPO reported that the assessee has failed to furnish the information ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee to submit various information. The assessee submitted its reply and contended that the transaction is replica transaction as of Cadbury India limited and the data submitted is the same as required in case of assessee. The ld TPO took the cognizance of the facts and the documents in case of Cadbury India limited and accepted the ALP of assessee without any variation. On the contrary the ld TPO stated in his order that the assessee had furnished the details in support of the income. It was finally argued that if the documents and the information were not furnished by assessee to the ld TPO, then, how the ld TPO accepted the ALP. On the other hand, ld DR for Revenue relied upon the order of AO and argued that the assessee not participate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 23.12.2011. The report under Form No. 3CEB is available at page no. 6 to 12 of PB which was furnished to DDIT with letter dated 30.09.2008 for relevant AY. The report is duly certified by C.A. that all the documents in respect of International Transaction have been maintained by assessee. The order in case of assessee u/s 92CA(3) was passed on 28.10.2011 and in case of Cadbury India Ltd. was passed on 30.10.2011. As per our considered opinion, the order u/s 92CA(3) was made by TPO after due consideration of the documents, information furnished by the assessee. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in ACIT vs. Smith & Nephew Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 16 taxmann.com 5 (Mumbai) on almost similar facts held as under: "the Assessee has to "k ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s under: "There cannot be any end or limit to the documentation or information relating to data bases or third parties. When there is general and substantive compliance of the provisions of Rule 10D, it is sufficient. The Legislature was conscious of this fact and, therefore, had specifically stipulated in Section 92D(3) that the Assessing Officer or Commissioner (Appeals) may require a person to furnish any information or document in respect thereof and on failure of the said person to furnish the documentation within the specified time, penalty under Section 271G can be imposed. Thus, for imposing penalty the Revenue must first mention the document and information, which was required to be furnished but was not furnished by the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
