Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI
ORDER
Per N. K. Saini, AM:
This is an appeal by the department against the order dated 14.03.2014 of ld. CIT(A)-VIII, New Delhi.
2. The only effective ground raised
in this appeal reads as under: “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty of Rs.46,82,26,600/- u/s 271G of the Income Tax Act, 1961.”
3. From the above ground, it is gathered that only grievance of the assessee in this appeal relates to the deletion of penalty levied by the AO 2 MMTC Ltd. u/s 271G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee is a Government of India Public Sector Enterprise engaged in the import and export of various bulk commodities. It has an associate enterprises (AE) based in Singapore, namely, MMTC Transactional Pte. Ltd. (MTPL) which is a 100% subsidiary of the assessee. During the year under consideration, the assessee had entered into international transactions mostly on the basis of global tender. It also entered into various international transactions with its AE, MTPL amounting to Rs.23411.33 million.
5. The assessee e-filed the return of income on 25.09.2009 declaring an income of Rs.237,73,77,871/-. Later on, a revised return was filed on 29.03.2011 declaring an income of Rs.237,53,50,630/-. The case was taken up for scrutiny. Since, the value of international transactions in this case exceeded the limit prescribed (Rs.15 Crores) under the Act, the AO made a reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) u/s 92CA of the Act. The TPO passed the order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act on 30.11.2012 and had not drawn any adverse inference in respect of the international transactions undertaken by the assessee during the financial year 2008-09 relevant to the assessment year under consideration. Thereafter, the AO issued notice for filing under Rule 10D, the documentation and to furnish the documents maintained u/s 92D(1) of 3 MMTC Ltd. the Act. The assessee filed some information on 16.08.2011. The AO observed that the assessee did not file documentation required to be maintained u/s 92D(1) of the Act, within 30 days and no extension of time was sought nor it was granted by any competent authority. He further observed that the documentation had been filed beyond stipulated time on 14.10.2011. The AO asked the assessee to explain as to why the penalty proceedings u/s 271G of the Act should not be initiated. The assessee submitted that vide letter dated 16.08.2011, it was requested that some more time may be given. The AO observed that the reply by the assessee was not satisfactory, as the TP report was not a document which was to be compiled after the receipt of the notice by the TPO/AO and that this document was supposed to be ready on the due date of filing of Form No. 3CEB and the return of income. He further observed that if a document was ready and the assessee did not file certain other documents on 16.08.2011 than it was difficult to believe as to how the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause on 16.08.2011 for not filing the TP report. The AO recommended the imposition of penalty u/s 271G of the Act and issued the show cause notice u/s 271G of the Act to the assessee on 20.03.2013. In response, the assessee submitted as under: 1. "The assessee company filed its return of income on 25/09/2009. 2. As required u/s 92E, the assessee company obtained a report, in Form 3CEB dated 16/09/2009 from M/s N.K.
4 MMTC Ltd. Bhargava & Co., Chartered Accountants, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as CA) 3. This report along with Transfer Pricing Report (termed as Transfer Pricing Review) was filed before the AO vide letter dated 30.09.2009 on the same date.
4. This report was prepared by CA after reviewing the documentation as prescribed under section 92D(1) of the Act which were maintained by various divisions/ROs of the company at different places spread over all the country.
5. The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) issued a letter dated 12.07.2011 asking for certain information which includes, amongst others, information and documents maintained u/s 92D(1) of the Act 6. Part information was submitted on 16/08/2011 vide assessee letter dated 12/08/2011. Actually, the information/documents were to be submitted on 12/08/2011. However, when the representative of the assessee company went to submit the same, the office of TPO was not functioning due to security reasons of Independence Day celebrations. Accordingly part information/documents were submitted on 16/08/2011. In the said letter dated 12/08/2011 which was submitted on 16/08/2011, it was clearly requested to give us some more time to submit the balance information. The assessee company was under the bonafide impression that a further date, specifying the information to be submitted, shall be communicated in writing by the TPO. However since it did not happen and the Ld. TPO did not send any further notice, the assessee on its own (suo-motto) submitted the balance information/documents vide its letter dated 14/10/2011. From the above it may be seen that the assessee complied on its own. Further, the Ld. TPO issued a notice dated 16/12/2011 asking for certain other information wherein nothing regarding delay 5 MMTC Ltd. in submission of documents was mentioned, which means that he was satisfied by reply of the assessee.
7. As mentioned above since the documents as per section 92D(1) were lying at various offices spread over all the country, the assessee desired some time to be allowed to furnish the balance information which was submitted on 14/10/2011.
The Id. TPO issued a notice dated 11/10/2012 wherein the assessee company was required to explain as to why the penalty proceedings u/s 271G should not be initiated. Reasons for the delayed submission, of the documents were furnished by the assessee before the TPO vide letter 19/10/2012 on the same date. However for the sake of clarity, reasons for delay in submission are reproduced hereunder: The assessee submits that it was constrained to submit the information belatedly due to the circumstances beyond its control as the assessee company and its officials were busy in:- i) Liasioning with Statutory Auditors in connection with completion of Audit under the Companies Act, 1956 which was completed in August, 2011. ii) Liasioning with CAG in connection Audit Report u/s 619 of the companies Act, 1954 since the Assessee is a Government company. The same was completed in August, 2011. iii) The assessee company had number of appeals fixed up for hearing before Delhi Bench of ITA T on various dates for various assessment years, that is, 28/07/2011 (for A.Y. 1996-97), 8/08/2011 (for A.Y.s 1995-96, 1996-97, 1998-99, 2001-02, 2003-04), 16/08/2011 (for A.Y. 2006-07), 29.08.2011 (For A.Y. 2003-04), 16.09.2011 (for Ay 2001-02 and 2003-04), 6 MMTC Ltd. 28/09/2011 (For AY 2003-04 and AY 2004- 05),03.10.2011 (for AY 1998-99), 12.10.2011 (for AY 1999-2000 and 2000-01). iv) Liasioning with the Statutory Auditors for finalization of Tax Audit Report in Form 3CA/3CD for the Financial Year ending 31st March, 2011 which was finalized on 28.09.2011. v) Preparation for Annual General Meeting of the Assessee company which was held on 30.09.2011.
9. It may also be submitted that it is not a case that documents prescribed u/s 92D(1) were not available with the assessee excepting that the same were to be collected from various offices /divisions spread all over the country. Moreover, staff dealing with tax / accounting matters were busy for various reasons as specified in Para 5 of the letter dated 19/10/2012. The assessee had, therefore, reasonable cause for the small delay in furnishing the documents prescribed u/s 92D(1) of the Act. However, such delayed furnishing of information has not caused any prejudice to the case of the assessee since even after furnishing the said documentation prescribed u/s 92D(1) vide letter dated 14/10/2011 and other information as per letter dated 10/01/2012 and 24.02.2012. The proceedings u/s 92CA(2) of the Act were started after a gap of more than 9 months to complete and leading to passing the order u/s 92CA(3) as per order dated 30/11/2012. Kind attention is also drawn to the provisions of Section 273B of the Act which overrides the provisions of 271G for the purposes of levy of penalty which stipulates that penalty u/s 271G may not be levied if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure.
7 MMTC Ltd. One cannot lose sight of the fact that whether the information u/s 92D (1) of the Act was furnished within the time prescribed or delayed submissions thereof has not made any difference to the case of the department since no addition what so ever have been made by the TPO in his order dated 30/11/2012. There is, therefore, no justification for initiating / levy of penalty u/s 271G of the Act. Kind attention is also invited to the following: order of IT A T in which on similar facts penalty levied by the AO u/s 271G of the Act was deleted:-
1. 1. DCIT vs LeroySomer and Controls (India) Pvt. Ltd. in dated 30/09/2011 (Delhi).
2. ACIT, Circle 12(1), New Delhi vs Global One India P Ltd. in ITA No. 5164 & 5165/DEL/2011 for AY 2005-06 (Date of Order 17/02/2012).
3. Nippo Batteries Co. Ltd, Chennai vs Department of Income Tax vide order dated 18/09/2012 in ITA No. 1137 & 1138/MDS/2010 for AY 2005-06. By the above orders of IT AT, the bonafide cause in delay in submission of documents, as proved, has been taken into cognizance and as such, the appellate proceedings have deleted the penalty u/s 271G. It is, therefore requested that penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271G may kindly be dropped."
6. The assessee also filed date wise events of the case as under: DATE-WISE EVENTS OF THE CASE Date S. No. Particulars 07/08/2009 Statutory Audit under companies Act 1 2 16/09/2009 Transfer Pricing Report issued by auditors (including documents maintained u/s 92D etc.)
8 MMTC Ltd. 12/07/2011 3 Notice u/s 92CA /92D(3) asking, amongst others, information and documents maintained u/s 92D(1) read with Rule 10D(1) /10D(3) along with Transfer Pricing Study Report. 4 12/08/2011 Part compliance to the notice maintained in (4) & above. Since the staff was busy for annual 16/08/2011 accounts for the FY 2010-11 and board meeting scheduled for 18/08/2011, time was sought for submitting balance information. (IT offices were closed in the afternoon of 12/08/2011 as well as from 13/08/2011 to 15/08/2011). 5 14/10/2011 Information was submitted in compliance to notice as per (4) above. 6 16/12/2011 Notice u/s 92CA(2) asking for information about AE. Information to be submitted by 05/01/2012 7 05/01/2012 Assessee filed a letter seeking time upto 25/01/2012. However, time was allowed upto 10/01/2012. 8 10/01/2012 The required information furnished. 9 15/02/2012 Notice u/s 92CA(2) seeking information to be submitted by 01/03/2012. 10 01/03/2012 Information was submitted vide letter dated 24/02/2012. 11 . 25/09/2012 Notice u/s 92CA(2) for appearance on 05/10/2012. 12 05/10/2012 Hearing attended. Officer pre-occupied and adjourned to 11/10/2012. Notice issued u/s 271G'to be replied within 10 13 11/10/2012 days 14 19/10/2012 Reply filed vide letter dated 19/10/2012. 15 30/11/2012 TPO passed order u/s 92CA(3). No adverse inference in respect of international transactions was drawn by the TPO. However, penalty proceedings 271 G were recommended.
7. The AO however did not find merit in the submissions of the assessee and levied the penalty of Rs.46,82,26,600/- u/s 271G of the Act by observing as under:
9 MMTC Ltd. “1. The assessee has contended that the TP report had been signed by the Auditors on 16.09.2009 to prove that it was ready much before filing the return of income. If the contention of the assessee is accepted, than AO has reasons to believe that the assessee has deliberately not filed the document (TP Report) that was ready in 2009 (two years back) before the TPO on 12.08.11.
If the Transfer Pricing Report had been duly approved by auditors in 2009, then it does not need compiling in 2011 beyond the stipulated time period of 30 days.
The assessee has contended in its letter dated 13.09.13 that it had submitted the Transfer Pricing Report to the AO along with Form 3CEB on 30.09.2009. This claim of the assessee is incorrect, as only Form 3CEB along with Annexure was submitted in the office of AO on 30.09.2009.
4. In the letter dated 16.08.13, the assessee has contended that it could not submit all the information called for due to a scheduled Board meeting on 18.08.2011. This reason is not tenable to allow extra time to the assessee for filing documents which have a fixed stipulated time of 30 days as per the Income tax Act, 1961.
All the reasons stated by the assessee in its reply to the show cause dated 11.10.2012, are not accepted by the AO. As these reasons pertain to administrative work of filing return of income and getting accounts audited which is routine work and is carried out for every year by the assessee. None of the reasons stated reflect any unusual circumstance or hindrance faced by the assessee in giving the TP report or other documents u/s 92D(3), within 30 days stipulated time. Therefore, it is concluded that the assessee has failed to give any reasonable cause as per S- 273B to justify the late filing 10 MMTC Ltd. of documents u/s 92D(3) after the stipulated time. Thus, in view of the above facts, the assessee remains liable for penalty u/s- 271G.
The assessee has failed to provide any supporting document on record to prove that the Transfer Pricing. Report was ready at the time compiling Form 3CEB and filing of Return of Income.
Further, the case laws relied upon by the assessee company is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Therefore, I am convinced that the assessee has committed default and is liable for imposition of penalty for failure to keep and maintain information and document in respect of international transaction as per S- 92D(3) of the IT. Act. Hence, penalty u/s 271G of the I.T. Act, 1961 is levied in this case. As per S-271G, this penalty is 2% of the total International Transaction which is Rs.23,41,13,30,000/-. Thus, the penalty of Rs.46,82,26,600/- is hereby imposed u/s 271G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This order has been proved with the prior approval of Addl.CIT,"Range-5, New Delhi.”
8. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the AO had not appreciated the reasonable cause for delay in submissions of document/information. It was further submitted as under: “It is pertinent to mention that even after so called delayed submission of documents/information to the Ld. TPO in October 2011, he delayed his finalization of the proceedings during the period starting from 1st March, 2012 till 30th November, 2012 (the date on which the Ld. TPO passed the 11 MMTC Ltd. order u/s 92CA recommending levy of penalty u/s 271G of the Act.) This indicates that for complete 9 months (the period starting from 1st March, 2012 to 30th Nov. 2012 no action was taken by the TPO on the documents/information provided by the Appellant. On the other hand, the Id. TPO recommended the levy of penalty for the delay of one month (that is, beyond 60 days as prescribed under Law). He has recommended levy of penalty. Moreover, even after delayed submissions of the documents/information, the Ld. TPO has not taken any adverse view as per sub section (1) and (2) of Section 92 C of the Act and has not determined any different arm length price in relation to the international transactions as mentioned in sub-section 3 of Section 92C. This means that the prices at which the Appellant has entered into international transactions were undertaken at arm length price. Since, no adverse view has been taken by the TPO, the Appellant submits that delayed submissions of documents/information is merely technical in nature and does not call for any penalty to be recommended/imposed."
The assessee had also taken the strong objection to the observation of the AO that the assessee had deliberately not filed the document and stated as under: a. A letter dt. 16.09.2009 (Copy enclosed- Page 5 to 6) addressed by General Manager(F&A) of the Appellant company to the Chartered Accountant -M/s NK Bhargava & Co. who were assigned the professional work relating 12 MMTC Ltd. to the certification in Form 3CEB and Transfer Pricing Study Report dt. 16.09.2009. b. The Appellant is enclosing herewith some samples of the internal noting wherefrom it is evident that the various Divisions of the Appellant were taking necessary action pursuant to obtaining certification u/s 92D (3) and obtaining TP Study Report from the Chartered Accountant (Pages 28 to 32) well before the date of the filing of the return. c. Kindly find enclosed copies of the internal noting dt. 1.04.2009 and 17.04.2009 appointing M/s N.K. Bhargava as Tax Auditors (Pages33 to 34). Also please find enclosed copies of the noting for processing the bill towards professional charges paid to M/s N.K. Bhargava (Pages35 to 36). These professional charges are paid towards fees for tax audit, which includes fees for Audit u/s 44AB of the Act, Certificate u/s 115JB as well as certification u/s 92CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Copy of the voucher making payment for the said services is also enclosed (Pages37). From these documents as proof, your honour may please observe that the contention of the TPO is not correct that the TP Study Report and other documents were not maintained by the Appellant and this is just a afterthought. d. An Instruction Order No. 334 dt, 04.02.2008 was issued by CGM(F&A) to various Divisions/Regional Offices of the Appellant Company to comply with the provisions contained in Section 92D read with Rule 10D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Copy enclosed -Pages 38 to 40). e. It may not be out of place to mention here that the documents, as prescribed u/s 92D read with rule 10D are 13 MMTC Ltd. always automatically and necessarily maintained by the Appellant company's various Divisions and Regional Offices, as at the time of entering into any international transactions, the tabulation for arriving at L1 (lowest price) bidder for import is prepared and only then, the decision of finalization of the contract is taken. Similarly, for transactions of exports, the respective Divisions are necessarily required to maintain these documents as at the time of bidding and opening the tender, the H1 (Highest Bidder) is finalized and accordingly tabulations/noting/approvals are taken. f. These copies of the approvals/tabulations/contracts were provided to the TPO (contained in 7 files which further contained details of commodity wise transactions entered between the associate enterprise and the Appellant) from where it may be observed that the documents, beyond any doubt, were already available on the record. However, as the Appellant's Tax Cell officials were busy in other statutory discharge of duties, as explained in the Appellant's letter dt. 13.09.2013 and 16.09.2013, it took some time to assimilate the information and documents from various Divisions of the Appellant. Under the circumstances, the Appellant submits that integrity of an Independent Chartered Accountant certifying Form 3CEB and TP Study Report dated. 16.09.2009 cannot be doubted and the allegation of the AO that the Report was not ready in 2009 is devoid of facts. Moreover, such an allegation against a Govt. of India Public Sector Enterprise by the AO is highly deplorable." The reliance was placed on the following case laws: � DCIT, Company Circle IV (1) Chennai vs. Magick Woods Exports Pvt. Ltd. 25 Taxman.com (Chennai)
14 MMTC Ltd. � Annapurna Business Solutions vs ACIT, Circle 6(1) 17 Taxman.com 125 (Hyderabad) � ACIT Circle 12(1), New Delhi vs Globe One India Pvt. Ltd. 19 Taxman.com 249 Delhi � CIT vs M/s Leroy Somer &_Controls India Pvt. Ltd. in Appeal No.410/2012 dt. 30th August, 2013 (Delhi High Court) 10. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee deleted the penalty by observing as under: “8.1 The requirement, as mentioned, by the TPO in his letter dt. 12/07/2011 are without application of mind, without reviewing the information already available on record and without specifically mentioning the information which is relevant to an international transaction and without referring to any specific clause from (a) to (m) of Rule 10D of the Income Tax Rules. The said notice is, therefore, held to be bad in law and cannot be treated as proper and legal in terms of Section 92D (3) of the Act relying upon Para 32 of the order of IT AT in the case of Cargill India Pvt. Ltd. 110 ITD 616 Delhi. 8.2 The contention of the Appellant that it had reasonable cause with respect to delayed submission of information/documents read with Section 92D of the Act, it is held that since the staff of the Appellant was busy in preparation for various appeals listed before ITAT as well as conference with the advocates with regards to such preparation, the same would be amount to a reasonable cause for such delayed submission of such documents/information, as prescribed, in Section 273B of the Act. Section 273B overrides the provisions of Section 271G since it starts with "an non-obstante clause". It is, therefore, held that the Appellant had sufficient and reasonable cause for delayed submission of documents required u/s 92D and will be eligible 15 MMTC Ltd. to the benefit of Section 273B of the Act. The penalty levied u/s 273G is, therefore, liable to be deleted on this count as well.” The reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs M/s Leroy Somer & Control India Pvt. Ltd. (supra)
Now the department is in appeal. The ld. DR strongly supported the order of the AO and reiterated the observation made in the penalty order dated 25.09.2013.
In his rival submissions the ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and further submitted that the penalty u/s 271G of the Act is leviable for non-filing of the documents and not for the delay in filing the documents. It was further submitted that in the instant case, notice dated 12.07.2011 issued by the AO was ambiguous for the reason that the reference was made by the AO for examining the Arm’s Length Price for financial year 2007-08 and not for the year under consideration i.e. the financial year 2008-09 and the notice did not specify the specific information required to be furnished in terms of Section 92D(3) of the Act r.w.r. 10D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Therefore, the notice issued was vague and was not valid in the eyes of law.
16 MMTC Ltd. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: � CIT vs. Leroy Somer & Controls (India) (P.) Ltd. 360 ITR 532 (Del HC) � Cargill India (P.) Ltd vs. DCIT 110 ITD 616 (Del Tri.) � ACIT vs. Global One India (P.) Ltd. 53 SOT 106 (Del Tri.) � Mayar India Limited vs. DCIT in (Del Tri.) � Worlds Window Impex (India) (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT in ITA No. 3721/Del/2014 (Del Tri.) � DCIT vs. M/s. Magick Woods Exports (P) Ltd. 53 SOT 293 (Chen Tri) � ACIT vs. Nippo Batteries Co. Ltd. in ITA No. 1137/ 1138/MDS/2010 (ChenTri) 13. It was further submitted that in fact there was no delay in filing the information as required to be maintained u/s 92D r.w.r. 10D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 in view of the following reason: “a) Part documents filed on 16.8.2011 (since income tax office closed on 12.08.2011 to 15.08.2011 due to security reasons on account of Independence day); b) Vide above letter extension sought by the assessee to file balance information and there was no denial of such request by the assessing officer; therefore, the request of the assessee is legally deemed to be accepted; c) Entire information/documentation filed suo-motu by the assessee on 14.10.2011, even before the TPO pointed out any delay.”
It was also submitted that the penalty u/s 271G of the Act is not mandatory but subject to the overriding provisions of Section 273B of 17 MMTC Ltd. the Act which provides that no penalty is leviable in circumstances where there existed reasonable cause for failing to comply with any requirement of law. It was further submitted that there was a reasonable cause, the delay was explained vide letters dated 19.10.2012, 18.04.2013, 13.09.2013 and 16.09.2013 and the documents were filed much before passing of the order by the TPO. It was stated that the ld. CIT(A) appreciated the facts in right perspective and deleted the penalty by following the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs Leroy Somer & Controls (India) Pvt. Ltd. 360 ITR 532.
We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the assessee filed the documents on 14.10.2011 which has also been admitted by the AO at page no. 2 of the assessment order dated 20.03.2013 wherein it has been mentioned as under: “The assessee filed some information (other than the prescribed documents maintained u/s 92D(1)) on 16.08.2011 but the assessee did not file documentations required to be maintained u/s 92D(1). The normal time allowed for filling rule 10D documentation is 30 days. Assessee has failed to file documents by 12.08.2011 or even 16.08.2011. No extension of time was either sought by the assessee nor was it granted by any competent authority. The documentations had been filled beyond stipulated time on 14/10/2011.”
From the above narrated facts, it is clear that the present case is not the case where documents were not filed at all rather it is a case where there was a delay in filing the documents before the AO. In the present case, the assessee explained the reasons for filing the documents belated which has been discussed in the former part of this order. On a similar issue the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Leroy Somer and Controls (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 360 ITR 532 (supra) held as under: “Section 271G of the Income-tax Act, 1961, prescribes penalty in case a person fails to furnish information or document required by sub-section (3) of section 92D to the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals). The penalty imposable is discretionary and not mandatory. Section 271G has to be interpreted reasonably and in a rational manner. Information or documentation, which is assessee-specific or specific to the associated enterprises, should be readily available, whereas other documentation or information relating to data bases or transactions entered into by third parties may require collation or collection from time to time. 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 with the provisions of rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, it is sufficient. The Legislature has specifically stipulated in section 92D(3) that the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) may require a person to furnish any information or document in respect thereof and on failure of the person to furnish the documentation within the specified time, penalty under section 271G can be imposed. The notice under section 92D(3) should specify the information or document, which was required to be submitted and if and when there is failure or delay in submission of the documentation or information, penalty can be imposed under section 271G. 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 19 MMTC Ltd. assessee within the specified time. The documentation or information should be one specified in rule 10D, which has been formulated in terms of section 92D(1).” It has further been held that: “the order passed by the Assessing Officer merely recorded that there was failure to file rule 10D documentation without specifying or stating which document or information was not furnished in spite of the notice calling for the information of document under section 92D(3). In the absence of the basic details or facts, the order of the penalty under section 27lG could not be sustained.”
In our opinion, the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the aforesaid referred to case is applicable to the facts of the present case and even the ld. CIT(A) has followed the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High court. We, therefore, do not see any valid ground to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A).
In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 28/06/2017)