9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 253X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... limitation - The Revenue was under no obligation to wait for the assessee to file an appeal against assessment order after the limitation period was over. After issuance of notice, the Revenue ought to have completed penalty proceedings within the period prescribed under the Act without waiting for the assessee to file appeal against the assessment order beyond the period of limitation - The second notice issued u/s.158BFA(2) does not confer any power to Revenue to Denovo penalty proceedings against the assessee - The Act specifically provides for the time limit within which order imposing penalty has to be passed - The statutory time limit cannot be enlarged with the issuance of fresh notice – Revenue failed to complete penalty proceed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore the CIT(Appeals) against the assessment order after the delay of Two Hundred Twenty One days. The CIT(Appeals) after condoning the delay in filing of the appeal, dismissed the appeal of the assessee on merits vide order dated 30-03-2009. After the dismissal of quantum appeal of the assessee, a fresh notice u/s.158BFA(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 17-09-2009. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-II, Chennai vide order dated 23-10-2009 levied a penalty of Rs. 18,97,142/-. Aggrieved against the penalty order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(Appeals). The assessee challenged the penalty order inter-alia on the ground of limitation. The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the penalty levied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TTJ 564. 4. On the other hand, Shri S. Dasgupta, appearing on behalf of the Revenue submitted that the action of the revenue authorities is within the period of limitation. The quantum appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the CIT(Appeals), thus, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was confirmed. A penalty of Rs. 18,97,142/- has been levied on the assessee in accordance with law. There is no delay on the part of department in initiating penalty proceedings against the assessee. The ld.DR strongly supported the impugned order and prayed for the dismissal of the appeal of the assessee. 5. We have heard the submissions made by the representatives of both the sides. We have also perused the orders of the authorities below as wel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly where the undisclosed income determined by the Assessing Officer is in excess of the income shown in the return and in such cases the penalty shall be imposed on the portion of undisclosed income determined which is in excess of the amount of undisclosed income shown in the return. (3) No order imposing a penalty under sub-section (2) shall be made,- (a) unless an assessee has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard; (b) by the Assistant Commissioner 39 [or Deputy Commissioner] or the Assistant Director 39[or Deputy Director], as the case may be, where the amount of penalty exceeds twenty thousand rupees except with the previous approval of the 40[Joint] Commissioner or the 40[Joint] Director, as t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12-2000: Search u/s.132 was conducted in the case of Shri P.Ganesan, Proprietor M/s.Saravana Video Centre who is the father of the assessee-appellant; II. 01-10-2002: Notice u/s.158BD was issued to the assessee; III. 26-12-2002: The assessee filed her return of income in response to the notice u/s.158BD returning undisclosed income of Rs. 9,12,250/-; IV. 29-10-2004: Assessment u/s.158BD r.w.s.158BC was completed; V. 29-10-2004: Notice u/s.158BFA for levy of penalty was issued to the assessee; VI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal or appeal before the Tribunal, penalty proceedings can be completed, if it is in the same financial year of such recomputation consequent on appeal, but if it is not completed within the same financial year, it has to be completed within six months from the end of the month in which the order was received. 8. In the present case, after issuance of notice u/s.158BFA(2) on 29-10-2004, the Revenue has not taken any action within the time limit prescribed under the Act for levy of penalty against the assessee. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(Appeals) much after the period of expiry of limitation. By the time assessee preferred an appeal, the period of six months from the date of issuance of notice had already elapsed. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
