INCOME TAX OFFICER vs. M/S. CARRARO TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT.LTD, PUNE

आदेश / ORDER

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM

This appeal by Revenue is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Pune dated 06.09.2016 whereby penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been deleted by the First Appellate Authority.

2 ITA No. 2776/PUN/2016 A.Y.2010-11

period relevant to assessment year under appeal, the assessee entered into

international transactions with its AEs. To examine arms length price (ALP) of

the international transactions reference was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer

(TPO). The TPO after analysing the transactions proposed adjustment of

Rs.72,79,939/-. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer passed assessment order

making addition of the aforesaid amount and also initiated penalty proceedings

u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Penalty

of Rs.22,49,501/- u/s.271(1)(c) was levied by the Assessing Officer vide order

dated 26.03.2015.

Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals). The Commissioner of Income

Tax(Appeals) vide impugned order deleted the penalty primarily on the ground

that while levying penalty, the provisions of Explanation-7 to section 271(1) were

not invoked. Against the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the

Revenue is in second appeal before the Tribunal.

supporting the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) contended that

apart from the fact that while levying penalty in respect of international

transactions, ‘Explanation-7’ to section 271(1)(c) were not invoked, the Assessing

Officer has also not specified the charge for levying penalty in the penalty order

dated 26.03.2015. Thus, there is ambiguity in the order of levying penalty with

respect to charge. It is not emanating from the penalty order as to whether

penalty is being levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or

concealing the particulars of income.

vehemently defended the order levying penalty. The ld. DR submitted that while

3 ITA No. 2776/PUN/2016 A.Y.2010-11

recording satisfaction in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has

categorically mentioned that penalty proceedings are being initiated

u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. In the

order levying penalty dated 26.03.2015, the Assessing Officer has mentioned

pre-conditions for levying penalty and also the charge for levying penalty. The

ld.DR further contended that mere non-mentioning of ‘Explanation-7’ in the

penalty order, would not make penalty proceedings invalid or defective.

have perused the orders of Authorities below. The Revenue in appeal has

assailed the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) in deleting penalty

levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. It is an undisputed fact that penalty proceedings

u/s.271(1)(c) were initiated in respect of adjustment proposed by the TPO in

proceedings u/s.92C of the Act.

made in proceedings u/s. 92C, we find that ‘Explanation-7’ to section 271(1)(c)

comes into play. For the sake of completeness, the provisions of Explanation 7

are reproduced herein below:

“Explanation-7-Where in the case of an assessee who has entered into an international transaction [or specified domestic transaction] defined in section 92B, any amount is added or disallowed in computing the total income under sub-section (4) of section 92C, then the amount so added or disallowed shall, for the purposes of clause (c) of this sub-section, be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed or inaccurate particulars have been furnished, unless the assessee proves to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) [or the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner] that the price charged or paid in such transaction was computed in accordance with the provisions contained in section 92C and in the manner prescribed under that section, in good faith and with due diligence.”

We observe that neither at the time of recording satisfaction for initiating

penalty proceedings nor at the time of levy of penalty, the Assessing Officer has

made any reference to ‘Explanation-7’.

4 ITA No. 2776/PUN/2016 A.Y.2010-11

We further observe that in the penalty order dated 26.03.2015, the Assessing Officer has not specified the charge for which penalty is being levied i.e. ‘concealment of income’ Or ‘furnishing inaccurate particulars of income’. Apart from provisions of section 271(1)(c), ‘Explanation-7’ also mandates that for levying penalty in respect of any addition or disallowance to international transactions, penalty can be levied for either of the two defaults i.e. ‘concealment’ or ‘furnishing inaccurate particulars’ of income. The order levying penalty suffers from incurable defect of ambiguity. We do not find any infirmity in the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Hence, the grounds of appeal raised by Revenue are dismissed being devoid of any merit.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 8.

Order pronounced on Friday, the 07th day of September, 2018.

Sd/- Sd/- (अ�नल चतुव�द� /ANIL CHATURVEDI) (�वकास अव�थी /VIKAS AWASTHY) लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 07th September, 2018 SB आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The CIT(Appeals)-13, Pune. 4. The Pr. CIT-1, Pune. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, “बी” ब�च, 5. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 6.

// True Copy // आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER,

�नजी स�चव / Private Secretary आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.