DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1 (2), PUNE vs. FRANCOIS COMPRESSORS INDIA PRIVATE LTD, PUNE
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the non-furnishing of documents before the Assessing Officer was a technical hitch as the TPO had accepted the ALP after examining the documents. Furthermore, the penalty notice lacked specificity regarding the required documents, violating principles of natural justice.
What were the facts?
The assessee failed to furnish certain documents required under Section 92D of the IT Act and Rule 10D of the Income Tax Rules, despite opportunities. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271G, but the assessee had not filed the documents before the AO, though they were submitted to the TPO who accepted the Arm's Length Price.
What were the issues?
Whether penalty under Section 271G is imposable for non-furnishing of documents to the Assessing Officer when they were submitted to the TPO and ALP was accepted? Whether the penalty notice was valid without specifying the required documents?
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- CIT v. M/s. Leroy Somer & Controls (India) Pvt. Ltd.33 citing360 ITR 532 · 2013 · HC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, PUNE
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY
सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 27.05.2021 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 31.05.2021 आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM:
This appeal preferred by the Revenue emanates from the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-13, Pune dated 08.03.2017 for the assessment year 2012-13 as per the following grounds of appeal on record :
“1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to law and to the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) grossly erred in deleting the penalty levied u/s.271G of the I.T. Act.
3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) grossly erred in allowing the ground in favour of the assessee ignoring the provisions of Section 92D of the Act as well as Rule 10D of the Income Tax Rules.
4. For these and such other grounds as may be urged at the time of hearing, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be vacated and that of the AO restored. 5. The appellant craves to add, amend, alter or delete any of the above ground of appeal during the course of appellate proceedings before the Hon’ble Tribunal.”
2. In this case, the assessee had entered into international transactions and in respect thereof, he was supposed to furnish certain documents specified u/s.92D of the Act r.w.r. 10D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as „the Rules‟). That however, the assessee did not furnish those documents irrespective of opportunities being provided to him. The Assessing Officer while issuing notice u/s.274 r.w.s. 271G of Act in respect of section 92D(3) of the Act had show-caused why penalty u/s.271G of the Act should not be levied. The assessee had not attended penalty proceedings before the Assessing Officer and therefore, did not furnish any explanation before Assessing Officer regarding the issue of penalty levied u/s.271G of the Act.
That when the matter travelled before the Ld.CIT(Appeals), the assessee vide its submissions had explained that he was prevented from not filing the requisite documents as required u/s.92D r.w.r. 10D because of various reasonable causes. The assessee in its submissions has explained those reasonable causes before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) which is on record. More specifically, the assessee had contended that even though they had not filed requisite documents before the Assessing Officer but nonetheless all those documents were filed before the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and thereafter, the TPO in his order dated 29.01.2016 u/s. 92C(3) of the Act had accepted the value of international transactions with regard to Arm's Length Price (ALP) of the assessee and the said was not disturbed by the TPO. The assessee had further submitted that the basic purpose for furnishing the documents specified u/s.92D r.w.r. 10D is to justify the ALP with regard to international transactions entered into during the year under consideration by the assessee and when that has been determined and has not been disturbed by the TPO's order then non filing of such documents before the Assessing Officer is merely a technical hitch for which no prejudice is caused to the Revenue.
4. That further the assessee had contended that the principles of natural justice demands that the notice issued to the assessee for proceedings u/s.274 r.w.r. 271G in respect of section 92D(3) of the Act that such notice should contain the names of the specific documents which the Assessing Officer requires the assessee to file before him. That however, in the said notice issued to the assessee nothing was specifically mentioned by the Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Leory Somer & Controls (India) (P) Ltd. (2014) 360 ITR 532 (Del.) has held that notice issued u/s. 92D(3) of the Act should specify information or documents which was required to be submitted by the assessee. In absence of basic details or fact order of penalty u/s.271G of the Act cannot be sustained. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) in his order has observed that it is correct statement of fact that the TPO had passed order in favour of the assessee without disturbing the ALP of the international transactions. Meaning thereby that all the requisite details and documents were filed before him and as such there was no prejudice caused to the Revenue. That further the Assessing Officer in his notice issued for penalty proceeding u/s.271G of the Act has not specified what are the requisite documents to be furnished by the assessee before him and the Ld. CIT(Appeals) also has accepted the submissions on reasonable causes enumerated in the submissions of the assessee.
We have perused all the relevant documents placed before us and have gone through the submissions of the assessee as well as the assessment order and the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals) along with relevant documents annexed before us in the paper book, more specifically the penalty notice issued u/s.274 r.w.s 271G in respect of section 92D(3) of the Act, decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court (supra.) and the explanation of reasonable causes by the assessee. We find that the finding of the Ld.CIT(Appeals) is in order. The TPO has accepted the ALP of the assessee in respect of the international transactions. The basic requirements of the provision for filing documents u/s.92D r.w.r. 10D of the Rules is with regard to enabling the Department for determination of the said ALP. In any case when the Assessing Officer has referred the matter to the TPO ultimately all the documents would had to be examined by the TPO and in this case he has done that. Therefore, non-filing of such documents before the Assessing Officer is a mere technical hitch which has not caused any prejudice to Revenue
Thereafter, when we peruse the notice for penalty proceedings, there also, there is no mention of any specific documents that are required to be filed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer. Taking the guidance of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court (supra.) without naming those documents there cannot be any imposition of penalty u/s.271G of the Act. In our opinion, the principles of natural justice demands in respect of the right of defense for the assessee whatever proceedings are to be done by any Quasi-Judicial Authority, the first step is the issuance of notice to the assessee and in that said notice all the relevant details should be there so that the assessee gets an opportunity to prepare his defense and unfortunately in this case, it was not done. For this reason also penalty u/s.271G of the Act is not imposable. That further section 273B of the Act provides for reasonable cause and if that is justified, penalty /s. 271G of the Act may not be imposed and when this opportunity is given to the assessee by the statutes itself and the assessee has explained the reasonable causes which was accepted by the Ld. CIT(Appeal) and after perusing such reasons, we are in conformity with the findings of the Ld.CIT(Appeals). The Ld. DR could not bring out any evidences or place on record any material suggesting no reasonable cause in respect of the assessee. In view thereof, we don't find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(Appeal) and the same is upheld. The relief provided to the assessee is hereby sustained.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced on 31st day of May, 2021. Sd/- Sd/- INTURI RAMA RAO PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ददनांक / Dated : 31st May, 2021 SB आदेश की प्रधतधलधप अग्रेधषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 2.
3. The CIT(Appeals)-13, Pune.
The Pr. CIT-1, Pune. धवभागीय प्रधतधनधध, आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण, “ए” बेंच, 5. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. गार्ा फ़ाइल / Guard File. 6. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // धनजी सधचव / Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.
Date 1 Draft dictated on 27.05.2021 Sr.PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 31.05.2021 Sr.PS/PS 3 Draft proposed and placed JM/AM before the second Member 4 Draft discussed/approved by AM/JM second Member 5 Approved draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of order Sr.PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr.PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R 11 Date of dispatch of order
More judgments on Section 271G
- Senatech India Private Limited, Gautam… vs DCIT Tp 3(2)(2), DelhiITA 7827/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Aug 2026AY 2020-21
- P C Snehal Engineers Private Limited… vs DCIT, Circle 3(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 1174/AHD/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed14 Jul 2026AY 2014-15
- P C Snehal Engineers Private Limited… vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 1173/AHD/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed14 Jul 2026AY 2014-15
- DCIT Central Circle 1(1), Mumbai vs Carbon Creation Exports Pvt. Ltd, MumbaiITA 7818/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed30 Jun 2026AY 2014-15
- Beam Global Spirits and Wine (India)… vs DCIT Circle 4(2), New DelhiITA 1164/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: Disposed29 Jun 2026AY 2011-12
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026