ACIT vs. Gillette India Ltd (ITAT Jaipur)

DATE: January 16, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 21, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to download the file in pdf format
S. 92D/ 271G: Penalty for non-filing of transfer pricing documents cannot be levied in a general manner

It clearly emerges that during TP proceedings no intimation was given to the assessee alleging any delayed filing of TP report. There is no allegation of any specific non-compliance. The assessee on receipt of show cause notice reverted back to TPO asking for details of alleged non-compliance. In reply, the TPO instead detailing the nature of allegation again made a vague assertions that assessee’s case was liable for penalty u/s 271G of the Act. From the record, we are unable to comprehend as to what exact nature of non-compliance is made by the assessee. It is trite law that in penalty proceedings, the assessee needs to be made aware of the exact nature of charge which is leveled against him. This is so because the assessee is suppose to give a reply on the specific allegation and not on the assumptive allegation. In our considered view the reliance in the case of Cargil India (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITAT, Delhi Bench), 110 ITD 616 and CIT vs. Bumi High Way (P) Ltd. (Del.) (2014) DTR 110 321 (Del) covers this controversy. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court ordained that in order to impose any penalty, it is obligatory on the part of the Officer to indicate specific allegation. In the absence whereof, the penalty proceedings are not sustainable. Thus in our
considered view and the fact of the assessee’s case are in parity with these judgments (supra).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *