9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (8) TMI 328X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... D of the IT Act, 1961. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that during the course of assessment, it was noticed that the assessee-company had accepted loans/deposits in cash in violation of the provisions of s. 269SS. The AO thereafter initiated penalty proceedings under s. 271D/269SS and ultimately imposed a penalty of Rs. 5.11 lakhs. 3. In the first appeal, it was submitted that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duly supported by the order of the AO in para 7, wherein she observed that since no addition had been made there was no ground of any relief and hence the limitation period in this case could not be extended. The assessee further relied on the decision in the case of Manohar Lal vs. Dy. CIT (1995) 53 TTJ (Jp) 105, wherein it was held that cl. (a) of s. 275(1) does not apply to such a case as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was, therefore, held by the CIT(A) that the penalty order passed by the AO was barred by limitation as the case was covered by the decisions of the Jaipur and Pune Benches, and cancelled the penalty imposed by the AO. 4. Before us, learned Departmental Representative strongly rebutted the order of the CIT(A) and submitted that since the assessee had preferred an appeal before the first appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 253 and the period of six months could be counted from the end of the month in which the order of the CIT(A) or the Tribunal, as the case may be, is received by the Chief CIT or CIT, or before the end of the financial year in which the proceedings had been initiated, whichever period expires later; whereas the assessee has relied upon the decisions of the Jaipur and Pune Benches, wherein it has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Since in the present case, the penalty proceedings were completed after a period of 1-1/2 years, we find that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the impugned penalty imposed by the AO, relying upon the decisions of the Jaipur and Pune Benches. We, therefore, based on above facts and circumstances of the case, do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A) in deleting the penalty imposed unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
