Case Law Details
CIT Vs M/s. Gillette India Ltd. (Rajasthan High Court)
What is clearly discernable from the penalty order is that reference was not made to any particular or specific date by which assessee was required to submit the documents; or whether the same were furnished within 30 days or within the extended period of 30 days thereafter. Penalty under Section 271G cannot be imposed in this manner. A specific finding should be recorded on the date by which the assessee was required to furnish documents and whether documents were furnished, if not which documents were not furnished and whether any extension of time was granted by the Transfer Pricing Officer and if the required documents were then actually filed. The penalty order is bereft and devoid of the said details and, therefore, shows lack of application of mind. Transfer Pricing Officer had indicated that the Assessing Officer might initiate proceedings under Section 271G but he also did not refer to date of notice, date of furnishing of information/documents etc. There was no mandate or affirmative direction that penalty shall be imposed by the Assessing Officer, as has been observed in the first part at the penalty order.
In that view of the matter, the issue is answered in favour of the assessee and against the department.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGEMENT
1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgement and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the revenue.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
