9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mstances of the case as well as in the law the learned Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty under Section 271D holding that the penalty was not imposed within the prescribed period under Section 275(i)(c) from the date of initiation by the AO ignoring the legal provision that the authority competent to impose penalty under Section 271D was Joint Commissioner and hence the period of limitation should be reckoned from the issue of first show cause by the Joint Commissioner ?" Briefly stated the facts are that the assessee, an individual, derives income from his two proprietary concerns. The assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Act were completed on 25.03.2003. The Assessing Officer ('the AO') noticed that the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, who came to the conclusion that the matter called for no interference and hence, dismissed the appeal by the impugned order dated 22.09.2006. Assailing the order impugned, it has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the penalty proceedings under Section 271D of the Act could not have been taken as barred by limitation because the authority competent to impose such penalty was the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax and the period of limitation would be reckoned only from the date of issue of show cause notice by the Joint Commissioner. It is submitted that in the present case, the Joint Commissioner issued the notice for the penalty proceedings after the matter was referred to h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inding in this proceeding may not have any bearing on the issues relating to establishing default e.g. penalty for not deducting tax at source while making payment to employees, or contractor, or for that matter not making payment through cheque or demand draft where it is so required to be made. Either of the contingencies does not affect the computation of taxable income and levy of correct tax on chargeable income; if Clause (a) was to be invoked, no necessity of Clause (c) would arise." In the present case, the notice for issuance of the penalty proceedings under Section 271D of the Act for the alleged contravention of provisions of Section 269SS was issued to the assessee, of course by the AO, on 25.03.2003. Even if the matter had oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orders impugned. In view of the above, our answer to the formulated question of law is that 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 by the Joint Commissioner; but the period of limitation was to be reckoned from the date of issue of first show cause for initiation of such penalty proceedings. For the purpose of present case, as observed hereinabove, for the proceedings having been initiated on 25.03.2003, the order passed by the Joint Commissioner under Section 271D on 28.05.2004 was hit by the bar of limitation. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal have, thus, not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
