Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI
Before: MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SH. PRASHANT MAHARISHI
ORDER
PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM
This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order dated 28.02.2018 passed by CIT (A)-44, New Delhi for assessment year 2010-11.
The grounds of appeal are as under:-
“ Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty amounting to Rs.1,25,51,429/- imposed u/s 271G ignoring the fact that the assessee failed to furnish information or documents u/s 92D within stipulated time.”
The assessee Company Wipro GE Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. is engaged in the distribution of imaging agents as well as in the provision of support services.
The assessee filed its income tax return on 8/10/2010 declaring total income of Rs. 4,92,63,279/-. In the tax return, the assessee had shown tax liability of Rs. 1,77,29,321/-. The assessee deposited additions tax of Rs. 94,00,000/- is assessment tax of Rs. 81,88,360/- and tax which has been deposited at source for Rs. 1,40,964/-. The Assessing Officer levied the penalty u/s 271G of the Income Tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs.1,25,51,429/- vide order dated 30/7/2014.
4. Being aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee field before the CIT(A). The assessee CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.
4. The Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty amounting to Rs.1,25,51,429/-imposed u/s 271G ignoring the fact that the fail to furnish information or documents u/s 92D within stipulated time.
At the time of hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite giving notice for the date of hearing of 5/10/2021 on earlier occasion i.e. 27/7/2021 where the assessee’s counsel appeared. Therefore, we are proceeding on the basis of the submissions of the assessee made before the Assessing Officer as well as before the CIT(A).
We have heard Ld. DR and perused all the relevant materials available on record. It is pertinent to note that the CIT(A) has given a categorical finding that the assessee attended the hearings before the Transfer Pricing Office during the course of assessment proceedings and has filed information in Form 3CEB along with the return of income. The Transfer Pricing Officer has not made any Transfer Pricing Adjustment in his order u/s 92C A. Thus, the TPO accepted the international transactions of the assessee at Arm’s Length. The CIT(A) in the order observed that the assessee whether received the notice dated 10/10/2012 or not, cannot be verified because the records beyond 60 days cannot be verified from postal authorities. But there is a clear finding that the assessee filed the documents on 15/4/2013 one day after the receipt of the second notice dated 15/4/2013. Thus, Section 271G will not apply in the present case as the assessee has filed the documents. The CIT(A) has given a categorically finding and there is no need to interfere with the same. Hence, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.