Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3.7 Further, it is worthwhile to mention that the assessee did not report a transaction related to "Payment of discounting charges". In documentation submitted on 16.11.2005 at page 17, the assessee has admitted that it did not report, thus transaction related to "Payment of discounting charges" in Form 3CEB. It is, therefore, evident that by due date of filing of 3CEB no statutory documentation was maintained. Moreover, even in the documentation on 16.11.2005 nothing except that Comparable Uncontrolled Price method is most appropriate method to benchmark this international transaction was mentioned by CIPL. The total documentation submitted in respect of this international transaction is just one paragraph at page 41 of Document-I and one page in Document-Ill submitted on 23.12.2005. This page is a list of discounting contracts entered into by the assessee during the year along with rate of interest charged. The documentation is totally insufficient and qualifies to be characterized as no documentation. Hence it is a case where action both under Section 271 AA and 271G of Income Tax Act can be considered by the Assessing Officer.

(v) The learned CIT (Appeals) further recorded that penalty proceedings Under Section 27IG are different from penalty provisions of Section 271AA. In the appeal before him he was concerned with penalty imposed Under Section 27IG only.
(vi) On examination of various findings of the Assessing Officer at page 10, 11, 13 and in paras 21, 23, 24 and 29 of the order imposing penalty, the learned CIT (Appeals) reached the conclusion that documents furnished beyond due date i.e. after 21.11.2005 were not "supporting documents". These were vital in determination of ALP in international transaction. These documents are prescribed under Sub-rule (g), (h), (i) and (j) of Rule 10D of Income-tax Rules. The appellant had failed to furnish the prescribed documents/information within the due date and, therefore, penalty was rightly levied and worked out. The penalty order was accordingly confirmed.

22. As in the present case, question of validity of levy of penalty of Rs 40,46,41,376/- imposed Under Section 271G for not furnishing information and documents within the time specified in notice Under Section 92D(3) is under challenge, we will examine the Scheme relating to maintenance of information and documents and their furnishing before the revenue authorities for determining the ALP. The Assessing Officer/TPO needs information and documents on controlled and uncontrolled international transactions and other relevant evidence. The taxpayer, under the legislation, is rightly thought to be the best person to supply the relevant information being a party to the international transaction. The information and documents are prescribed as per Rule 10D of Income-tax Rules, quoted hereafter. In the column No. 2 on the right are the form/stage where particular information under specific clauses is required to be given.

(a)the price charged or paid in an international transaction has not been determined in accordance with Sub-Sections (1) and (2); or
(b)any information and document relating to an international transaction have not been kept and maintained by the assessee in accordance with the provisions contained in Sub-section (1) of Section 92D and the rules made in this behalf; or
(c)the information or data used in computation of the arm's length price is not reliable or correct; or
(d)the assessee has failed to furnish, within the specified time, any information or document which he was required to furnish by a notice issued under Sub-section (3) of Section 92D, the Assessing Officer may proceed to determine the arm's length price in relation to the said international transaction in accordance with Sub-Sections (1) and (2), on the basis of such material or information or document available with him: