|The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 5505 (Del-Trib)
INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Mere submission of Form 3CEB with accountant's report would not be treated as documents submitted under section 92D and a mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points which were not emerging from original facts of case, therefore, assessee was seeking review of Order by Tribunal without pointing out any mistake apparent on record as per section 254.
Appeal (Tribunal) - Rectification of Tribunal's order - Penalty order under section 271AA -
Assessee entered into certain international transactions with its Associated Enterprise in India and Form 3CEB was obtained. AO in terms of his powers under section 92C(3) analyzed the international transactions and found the same to be at arm's length. Accordingly, no transfer pricing adjustment was made in the case of assessee. Tribunal sustained the imposition of penalty under section 271AA imposed by AO. Assessee pointed that there was some mistake in the order passed by Tribunal and submitted that he had maintained all relevant evidences and documents as required under section 92D read with rule 10D of the Income-tax Rules of 1962 and no transfer pricing adjustment was made in the present case. In such a situation imposition of penalty sustained by Tribunal under section 271AA was not warranted. Thus, order of Tribunal needed to be rectified. Held: Form 3CEB is to be furnished according to the provisions of section 92E and for the documents maintained under section 92D are different. Mere submission of Form 3CEB with accountant's report would not be treated as documents submitted under section 92D. In case of Bebo Technologies [(2013) 40 Taxmann.com 168 (Chd) : 2013 TaxPub(DT) 2785 (Chd-Trib)], Tribunal deleted the penalty on the ground that show cause notice was not issued before passing the order under section 271AA. Thus, at this juncture, assessee was seeking review of the Order by the Tribunal without pointing out any mistake apparent on record as per section 254. Thus, Miscellaneous Applications filed by assessee under section 254 were dismissed.
Followed:Dy. CIT v. Convergys Customer Management Group [ITA No. 3529/DEL/2015, ITA No. 3530/DEL/2015, dt. 13-10-2020], Dy. CIT v. Bebo Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 40 Taxmann.com 168 (Chd-Trib) : 2013 TaxPub(DT) 2785 (Chd-Trib) and Cargill India (P.) Limited v. Dy. CIT (2008) 110 ITD 616 (Del-Trib) : 2008 TaxPub(DT) 1649 (Del-Trib).
FAVOUR : Against the assessee.
SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT