Held that the penalty had been initiated for non-reporting of the specified domestic transactions in form 3CEB entered into by the assessee whereas penalty had been levied for failure to maintain accounts as required under section 92E. The requirement to maintain information and documents were specified in section 92D and not section 92E and even if wrong-mention of the section was ignored, the bases for initiation and final levy of penalty were distinct. The assessee had explained that it had acted on the professional advice of its auditors to report only those transactions that exceeded the threshold and, consequently, the transactions undertaken with Y were duly reported in form 3CEB while the other transactions were not, since they did not exceed the prescribed threshold. Neither the Transfer Pricing Officer, nor the Assessing Officer, had commented adversely on the assessee’s explanation before levying penalty. Therefore, as the assessee had a reasonable basis for non-reporting of transactions in terms of section 273B. Levy of penalty is deleted. (AY.2014-15)