Tribunal held that for imposing penalty the Department must first mention the document and information, which was required to be furnished but was not furnished by the assessee within the specified time. The documentation or information should be that specified in rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, which has been formulated in terms of section 92D(1). The assessee had sufficiently complied with the requirement of rule 10D(i) and moreover the Assessing Officer had not raised any specific issue as to which specific documents were not produced under section 92D(3) . Thus the assessee has furnished all the information called for by the Assessing Officer and unless and until a specific defect was pointed out in the submission of documents, penalty under section 271G could not be levied. (AY.2012-13 to 2014-15)
Procter and Gamble Hygiene And Health Care Ltd. v Dy. CIT (2020) 83 ITR 9 (SN) (Mum.)(Trib.)
S. 271G : Penalty-Documents-International transaction-Transfer pricing-Department must mention document and information required to be furnished but not furnished by assessee within specified time-Levy of penalty is held to be not valid.