HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 104/2015 Commissioner of Income Tax, Alwar. Appellant Versus M/S Gillette India Ltd. 65-A, Bhiwadi Industrial Area, Bhiwadi, Distt. Alwar.Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mrs. Parinitoo Jain with Mr. Mukesh Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar with Mr. Prakul Khurana & Ms. Archana HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR Judgment Per Hon ble Jhaveri, J. 23/05/2017 1. By way of this appeal, appellant has challenged judgment and order of Tribunal whereby Tribunal has dismissed appeal of revenue. 2. Counsel for appellant has framed following substantial question of law: Whether Tribunal was legally justified in cancelling penalty levied under Sectioin 271G read with Section 274 for Rs.2,16,47,823/- specifically when assessee deliberately avoided production of T.P. documentation as required u/s 92D? 3. In view of fact that identical issue has been decided today in case of same assessee in Income Tax Appeal (2 of 3) No.134/2014, in view of decision of in case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Bumi Hiway (I) P.LTD.[2014] 110 DTR 0321 (Del.) where in it has been held as under: 6. What is clearly discernable from penalty order is that reference was not made to any particular or specific date by which assessee was required to submit documents; or whether same were furnished within 30 days or within extended period of 30 days thereafter. Penalty under Section 271G cannot be imposed in this manner. specific finding should be recorded on date by which 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 Transfer Pricing Officer and if required documents were then actually filed. penalty order is bereft and devoid of said details and, therefore, shows lack of application of mind. Transfer Pricing Officer had indicated that 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 Assessing Officer, as has been observed in first part at penalty order. 7. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted penalty after noticing factual matrix that Transfer Pricing Officer vide notice dated 12.03.2003 asked assessee to furnish copy of balance sheet, profit and loss account and other supporting documents. These were furnished on 20.06.2007. 8. Copy of notice dated 23.03.2011 issued by Assessing Officer has not been filed on record by Revenue along with present grounds of appeal. We do not know what was requisitioned and asked for by said notice and which/what documents and details were supplied. We also do not know whether any extension of time was prayed for or granted by (3 of 3) Transfer Pricing Officer and whether any hearing was fixed by Transfer Pricing Officer pursuant to notice dated 12.03.2007. It appears that Transfer Pricing Officer had asked for specific details and documents vide letter dated 12.06.2008 and these details were fully complied with on 25.06.2008 and 23.07.2008. Compliance of letter dated 12.06.2008 was made within period of 30 days on 25.06.2008 and then subsequently on 23.07.2008. date 23.07.2008 is within 60 days of issue of notice/letter dated 12.06.2008. We do not know documents filed on 25.06.2008 and which documents or details were subsequently filed on 23.07.2008. There is no discussion on said aspect in order passed by Assessing Officer, imposing penalty. In these circumstances, we do not find any merit in present appeal and same is dismissed. 4. In that view of matter, issue is answered in favour of assessee and against department. 5. appeal stands dismissed summarily. (VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR),J. (K.S. JHAVERI),J. Asheesh Kr. Yadav/191 Commissioner of Income-tax, Alwar v. Gillette India Ltd