9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice for initiation of proceedings was issued by the AO on 25.03.2003 and was served on the assessee on 27.03.2003. Obviously, the later period also expired on 30.09.2003 when six months expired from the end of the month in which the action for imposing the penalty was initiated. The order as passed by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax for the penalty under Section 271D on 28.05.2004 was clearly hit by the bar of limitation and has rightly been set aside in the orders impugned. Thus even when the authority competent to impose penalty under Section 271D was the Joint Commissioner, the period of limitation for the purpose of such penalty proceedings was not to be reckoned form the issue of first show cause, but from the date of issue of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 269SS to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/-; and the same being in contravention of Section 269SS, initiated the penalty proceedings under Section 271D of the Act. The show cause notice in this regard was served on the assessee on 27.03.2003. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-2, Udaipur on 22.03.2004, who was the competent authority under Section 271D to impose such penalty. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax came to the conclusion, by his order dated 28.05.2004, that the assessee was liable for penalty under Section 271D of the Act and imposed a penalty of Rs.4,00,000/- being the sum equal to the loan/deposit accepted in contravention of the provisions of Section 269SS of the Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m on 28.05.2004 could not have been considered barred by limitation. Nobody has appeared for the respondent despite service. After having given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and having examined the record, we are clearly of the view that this appeal remains meritless and the formulated question deserves to be answered against the appellant particularly for the view already taken by this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hissaria Bros., reported at 2007 291 ITR 244 (Raj.), wherein, this Court has specifically held as under:- 38. We are, therefore, of the opinion that since penalty proceedings for default in not having transactions through the bank as required under Sections ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the original assessment order and the appeal was decided on 13.02.2004, the same was hardly of relevance so far the penalty proceedings under Section 271D were concerned. As held by this Court in Hissaria Bros. (supra), completion of appellate proceedings arising out of assessment proceedings has no relevance over sustaining such penalty proceedings. As held clearly by this Court, in such a matter, clause (c) of Section 275 (1) would be applicable. Section 275(1)(c) could be noticed as under:- 275. Bar of limitation for imposing penalties. (1) No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be passed- ....... (c) in any other case, after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
