The material on record makes it clear that the assessee has maintained primary books of account / documents in respect of its business activity. The fact that the documents relating to transaction with the AE have also been maintained by the assessee is evident from the transfer pricing study report, wherein, the transaction with the AE has been benchmarked under TNMM. This shows that the assessee has maintained documents / books of account as required under the statute. It is also evident, in the course of proceedings before the Transfer Pricing Officer, the assessee has made substantial compliance by furnishing transfer pricing study report as well as many other documents. What the assessee has failed to furnish is, the segmental profitability of the AE and non–AE transactions. The inability to furnish the aforesaid details was also well explained by the assessee before the Transfer Pricing Officer and learned Commissioner (Appeals) by demonstrating the practical difficulty in maintaining those details considering the nature of business carried on. Notably, though, the Transfer Pricing Officer has alleged that non–furnishing of segmental profitability makes it difficult for him to correctly ascertain the arm’s length price, however, ultimately the Transfer Pricing Officer has accepted the transaction with the AE to be at arm's length. If the Transfer Pricing Officer was not satisfied with the benchmarking of the assessee under TNMM, nothing prevented him from rejecting assessee’ benchmarking and determining the arm’s length price of the transaction with the AE independently by applying any one of the prescribed methods. The blame for failure on the part of the Transfer Pricing Officer to determine the arm’s length price cannot be fastened with the assessee. As could be seen, under identical facts and circumstances, the Tribunal in Ankit Gems Pvt. Ltd. (supra) observed as under:– “5. We have considered rival submissions and perused material on record. We have also applied our mind to the decisions relied upon. On a careful reading of the penalty order passed under section 271G of the Act, it is evident, the Transfer Pricing Officer has proceeded to impose penalty under the aforesaid provision alleging that the assessee has failed to furnish certain information/documents which prevented him from determining the arm's length price properly. However, on a perusal of the orders passed by the Departmental Authorities as well as the material placed on record, it is noticed that the assessee has maintained books of account and other information to benchmark the international transaction with AE by applying TNMM and the transfer pricing study report containing such benchmarking was furnished before the Transfer Pricing Officer along with various other details. However, the Transfer Pricing Officer was of the view that the international transaction with AE should be benchmarked by applying CUP method and called upon the assessee to furnish segment-wise details of AE and non-AE sales. It is observed, before the Transfer Pricing Officer the assessee has made submissions explaining why it is not possible for a person engaged in manufacturing and sale of diamond and diamond jewellery to maintain segment-wise details of sales made to the AE and non-AEs for the purpose of applying CUP method. It was explained by the assessee that CUP method could not be applied as invoice of sale of AE and non-AE include different types of goods sold at different price. It is further observed, in the preceding years also, the assessee had benchmarked international transaction with AE by applying TNMM which was accepted by the Revenue. It is relevant to observe, the Transfer Pricing Officer has ultimately accepted the benchmarking done by the assessee under TNMM method. On going through the provisions of section 92D and rule 10D, we find that the assessee is required to maintain certain information/documents which may be required by the Transfer Pricing Officer for determining arm's length price. In the presentcase, it is not a fact that the assessee has not maintained any information as required under section 92D(1) r/w rule 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. Further, the assessee has also explained why it is not possible to furnish certain information sought by the Transfer Pricing Officer qua applicability of CUP method. In this regard, detailed written submission has been filed by the assessee before the Transfer Pricing Officer which has been properly evaluated by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and the difficulty in maintaining the information sought by the Transfer Pricing Officer has been well explained and analysed. It is also necessary to observe, ultimately the Transfer Pricing Officer had accepted the benchmarking done by the assessee under TNMM and no variation/adjustment was made by him to the arm's length price. 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 Transfer Pricing Officer in discarding the benchmarking done by the assessee and determining the arm's length price of the international transaction with the AE independently by applying anyone of the prescribed method. When the statutory provisions confer enough power on the Transfer Pricing Officer to benchmark the international transaction as per the provisions of the Act, the allegation of the Transfer Pricing Officer that by non-furnishing of documents by the assessee he was prevented from determining the arm's length price under CUP method is unacceptable. Therefore, when the Transfer Pricing Officer has accepted the benchmarking of the assessee, the imposition of penalty under section 271G of the Act is unsustainable. The decisions relied upon by the learned Authorised Representative dealing with identical issue of imposition of penalty under section 271G of the Act are squarely applicable to the facts of the present appeal. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any infirmity in the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) in deleting the penalty imposed under section 271G of the Act. Grounds are dismissed.