9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 538X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d.(2006 -TMI - 9804 - DELHI High Court ), the Tribunal further observed that action for penalty may be permissible only after regular assessment has been framed and since no regular assessment order had been passed in this case, the recourse to penalty proceedings under Section 271E were not justified - Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. - ITA No. 812 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 14-1-2011 - MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, JJ. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate for the appellant. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ) against the order dated 2.2.2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2.2003 and notice under section 274 read with section 271E was issued on 12.06.2007, without taking into cognizance the decision of the ITAT, Chandigarh Special Bench in the case of Dewan Chand Amrit Lal Vs. DCIT reported in 98 TTJ 947 wherein it has been held that non-prescribing the time limit for initiation of penalty proceeding is conscious and there is neither any necessity nor the Tribunal is empowered to prescribe any limitation for initiation of penalty proceedings even assuming that there is an unintended omission by the legislature, casus omissus of the legislature cannot be provided? 2. The facts necessary for adjudication as narrated in the instant appeal are that the assessee, Manohar Lal Thakral, Karta HUF was proprietor of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short the CIT (A) ] who vide order dated 28.11.2008 upheld the order of penalty. On further appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal vide its order dated 2.2.2010 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the CIT (A). This gave rise to the revenue to approach this Court by way of present appeal. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 5. The only point for consideration in this appeal is whether the assessee had contravened the provisions of Section 269T of the Act by making repayment of loan/deposits of Smt. Kusum Lata Thakral, through account payee cheque or account payee drafts to M/s Babyloan Builders Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon and, therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3) of the Act. It was also within the power of the AO at the appropriate stage to initiate proceedings u/s 147 of the Act against the assessee. No such action was taken. Rather, the penalty was imposed on the basis of the finding in the case of assessee's wife. 6. No error or perversity could be shown in the aforesaid findings recorded by the Tribunal. Moreover, the assessee had taken a plea before the Assessing Officer that there was a reasonable cause for the assessee to have made direct payment of Rs.14,02,600/- to M/s Babyloan Builders Private Ltd., Gurgaon. It was pleaded that some of the repayments made by the assessee were inter company transfer for group housing and purchase of flat and at times payments were made after closure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
