Appeal has been filed by the Revenue challenging the order dt. 1st Nov., 2017, passed by the learned CIT(A)-55, Mumbai, deleting the penalty imposed under s. 271G of the IT Act, 1961 In the present case, it is not a fact that the assessee has not maintained any information as required under s. 92D(1) r/w r. 10D(1). The facts on record clearly indicate that the assessee, indeed, has maintained a number of information/documents as required under the statutory provisions. In fact, the assessee has furnished segmental profitability at gross level. No specific discrepancy has been pointed out by the TPO with regard to the information furnished by the assessee including segmental profitability. Further, the assessee has also explained why it is not possible to furnish certain information sought by the TPO qua applicability of internal CUP method. In this regard, detailed written submission has been filed by the assessee before the TPO which has been properly evaluated by learned CIT(A) and the difficulty in maintaining the information sought by the TPO has been well explained and analysed. It is also necessary to observe, ultimately the TPO has accepted the benchmarking done by the assessee under TNMM and no variation/adjustment was made by him to the ALP. Even, assuming that the assessee has not maintained documents as required or was unable to support the benchmarking done by it under TNMM, nothing prevented the TPO in discarding the benchmarking done by the assessee and determining the ALP of the international transaction with the AE independently by applying any one of the prescribed methods. When the statutory provisions confer enough power on the TPO to benchmark the international transaction as per the provisions of the Act, the allegation of the TPO that due to non-furnishing of documents by the assessee he was prevented from determining the ALP under CUP or PS method is unacceptable. Therefore, when the TPO has accepted the benchmarking of the assessee, the imposition of penalty under s. 271G of the Act is unsustainable. The decisions relied upon by the learned Authorised Representative dealing with identical issue of imposition of penalty under s. 271G of the Act are squarely applicable to the facts of the present appeal.