Facts of the Case

  • The Transfer Pricing Officer issued notice dated 19 March 2007 requiring furnishing of transfer pricing documentation under Section 92D read with Rule 10D.
  • The assessee sought adjournment on 11 April 2007.
  • The matter was adjourned first to 8 May 2007 and thereafter to 18 May 2007.
  • The assessee furnished transfer pricing report along with Form 3CEB and relevant Rule 10D documentation on 16 May 2007.
  • The Assessing Officer imposed penalty under Section 271G amounting to Rs.1,31,82,960/- alleging failure to furnish documentation within prescribed time.
  • CIT(A) deleted the penalty holding that documentation was furnished within the extended statutory period of sixty days.
  • The ITAT affirmed deletion of penalty.
  • Revenue challenged the Tribunal order before the Delhi High Court

Issues Involved

  1. Whether penalty under Section 271G could be imposed when transfer pricing documentation was furnished within the extended permissible period under Section 92D(3).
  2. Whether ambiguity or uncertainty regarding filing of Rule 10D documentation justified levy of penalty under Section 271G.
  3. Whether penalty proceedings could survive when the Assessing Officer himself was uncertain regarding actual non-compliance by the assessee

Petitioner’s Arguments (Revenue)

  • The Revenue contended that the assessee failed to furnish Rule 10D documentation within the stipulated time.
  • It was argued that there was no corroboration from the Transfer Pricing Officer confirming timely filing of documentation.
  • Revenue further contended before the High Court that the documents filed on 16 May 2007 did not include complete Rule 10D documentation.
  • The Assessing Officer relied upon absence of specific confirmation from the TPO to justify levy of penalty under Section 271G

Respondent’s Arguments (Assessee)

  • The assessee submitted that adjournments granted by the Transfer Pricing Officer effectively extended the statutory period for compliance.
  • It was argued that all requisite transfer pricing documentation including Rule 10D documents and Form 3CEB had been filed on 16 May 2007 within the extended period of sixty days permissible under Section 92D(3).
  • The assessee contended that penalty proceedings were initiated merely on assumptions and without conclusive proof of non-compliance.
  • It was also submitted that no transfer pricing adjustment was ultimately made by the TPO, demonstrating adequacy of documentation furnished.

Court Findings / Court Order

The Delhi High Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeal and upheld deletion of penalty under Section 271G.

The Court held:

  • Section 92D permits furnishing of documents within thirty days from service of notice and allows extension by another thirty days.
  • The assessee had filed documentation within the extended permissible period of sixty days.
  • The findings recorded by CIT(A) and ITAT regarding timely compliance were factual and justified.
  • The Assessing Officer himself was uncertain regarding actual non-filing of Rule 10D documentation.
  • Penalty cannot be imposed on the basis of ambiguity, assumptions, or surmises.
  • The penalty order was self-contradictory and lacked certainty regarding violation of statutory provisions.
  • The Revenue raised a new contention before the High Court which had not been taken before the Tribunal or in the penalty order itself.
  • Since no violation of Section 92D read with Rule 10D was conclusively established, penalty under Section 271G was unsustainable.

The appeal of the Revenue was accordingly dismissed.

Important Clarification

  • Mere absence of confirmation from the Transfer Pricing Officer regarding filing of documentation cannot automatically lead to penalty under Section 271G.
  • Penalty proceedings require clear and conclusive establishment of default.
  • Where extension of time is granted and documentation is furnished within such extended period, no penalty under Section 271G can be levied.
  • Ambiguity or doubt in the mind of the Assessing Officer is insufficient for imposition of transfer pricing penalty.
  • The judgment reinforces that penal provisions under transfer pricing law must be strictly construed. 

Sections Involved:

  • Section 92D of the Income Tax Act, 1961
  • Section 271G of the Income Tax Act, 1961
  • Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961
  • Rule 10D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962

Link to Download the Order https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/case_number_pdf/2014:DHC:7415-DB/SKN23122014ITA7572014.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.