MANGAL PULSES PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ACIT,TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER-2(2)(2), NEW DELHI

None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite services of notice to the assessee on various occasion sand also notice sent through email. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is being decided ex parte.

On the perusal of the impugned penalty order we find that the Assessing Officer has levied penalty under section 271G being 2% of value of specified domestic transaction for non compliance to notices and non production of documents specified. He noted that assessee did not appear on the specified date on 09.03.2017 nor has sought any adjournment and accordingly penalty of Rs. 2,23,89,024/- has been levied. This has also been confirmed by the Ld. CIT (A). It is seen from the submissions incorporated in the appellate order that the only contention of the assessee has been that TPO has accepted the transfer pricing study report and has not drawn any adverse inference in respect of SDT undertaken by it during the financial year 2013-14. However, nowhere it has been stated by the assessee as to whether any notices were received by the assessee as issued by the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer or assessee has sought for any extension of time under the proviso to sub section (3) of section 92D. At least assessee should have given some explanation as to what was the reason that assessee could not file the requisite documents as specified under Rule 10D. Accordingly, the matter is restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer wherein the assessee should give specific explanation and the reason for non compliance and in case such reasons are found to be plausible and on bonafide reason then penalty should be deleted. The assessee should comply with the notices issued by the Assessing Officer and Assessing Officer should decide the issue afresh after giving due opportunity to the assessee.

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.