Assotech Moonshine Urban Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), New Delhi

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee filed its Income Tax Return on 29.11.2018 at an income of Rs. (-) 1,58,23,037/-. The assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act was issued on 24.11.2021 at an assessed income of Rs. 1,78,62,290/- after making addition of Rs. 3,36,85,328/- on account of adjustment as advised by the TPO. The Assessing Officer has also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271G of the I.T. Act, since the assessee has not furnished information and timely transfer pricing documents before the Transfer Pricing Officer as intimated by the TPO. AO imposed the penalty of Rs. 22,75,195/- u/s. 271G of the Act vide order dated 31.05.2022. Against the penalty order dated 31.5.2022, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A). Upon assessee’s appeal, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. Against the above action of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the tribunal.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the order passed by the NFAC is bad both in the eye of law and on facts?
• 2. Whether NFAC has erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the action of the AO in levying penalty of Rs. 22,75,195/- under section 271G of the Act?
• 3. Whether NFAC has erred, both on facts and in law in passing the order without giving assessee a fair and adequate opportunity of being heard in clear violation of principle of natural justice?
• 4. Whether NFAC has erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the penalty despite the fact that there is no failure on the part of assessee to furnish any such information or document as required by sub-section (3) of section 92D of the Act?
• 5. Whether NFAC has erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the penalty despite the fact that the TPO himself had accepted that the relevant document/information were submitted and placed on record?
• 6. Whether the provisions for levying of penalty under section 271G are discriminatory and not mandatory in nature?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• Twentieth Century Fox Telecommunications International Inc. vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax)-4(1)(2) Mumbai

  Mumbai bench

• YKK India P. Ltd. vs DCIT

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15Partly Allowed

• T.K.Elevators India Private Limited (Formerly ThyssenKrupp Elevator (India) Pvt. Ltd.) vs. DCIT

  Delhi Bench ‘H’ benchAY 2010-11Allowed

• M/s. Tractors and Farm Equipment Ltd. Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai

• Viraj Solar Maharashtra Private Limited Vs ITO, 8(3)(1), Mumbai

  Mumbai Bench benchAY 2021-22Allowed

• McKinsey Global Capabilities & Service P. Ltd. vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax