9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order, six months expires on 30.9.2011., hence the order of the penalty levied u/s 271D is barred by time limit. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 2168/Del/2013 and CO 156 /Del/2013 - - - Dated:- 31-10-2013 - SHRI I. C. SUDHIR AND SHRI J.S. REDDY, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri R.S. Meena, CIT, DR For the Respondent : Shri D.C. Agarwal, Advocate ORDER PER I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER The revenue has impugned first appellate order solely on the ground that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in cancelling the penalty of ₹ 14,25,74,302/- imposed by the Additional CIT u/s 271D of the I.T. Act. 2. The assessee on the other hand has objected the first appellate order on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de payments to various land owners on behalf of the assessee. Copies of sale deed executed between the assessee and the land owners / sellers were furnished in which it was cited that the payments have been received in the form of demand drafts. It is on this account that the assessee had shown PACL India Ltd. as its sundry creditors in the balance sheet. The AO did not agree with the explanation of the assessee with this observation that there is no direct business dealing between the assessee and PACL India Ltd., therefore PACL India Ltd. cannot be treated as a sundry creditors of the assessee. At the most PACL India Ltd. was considered as a giver of the loan to the assessee which the assessee has to refund in future. AO further observed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act are applicable as per which the penalty order is not barred by limitation. The assessee in its cross objection has questioned this action of the Ld. CIT(A) in not holding the penalty order as time barred. 5. In support of the objection the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) while rejecting the contention of the assessee that penalty order u/s 271D is barred by time limit has failed to appreciate that the case of the assessee in the computation of prescribed limitation period will fall under the category of in any other case under sub section (1)(c) to section 275 of the Act. He pointed out that the date of assessment order during the course of which penalty proceedings u/s 271D were initiated is 30.12.2009, the financial y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vs. Hissaria Bros. 291 ITR 244 (Raj.) 4. Ashwani Kumar vs. ITO (2009) 309 ITR (AT) 69 (Del) 5. CIT vs. Chhajer Packaging and Plastics P. Ltd. 300 ITR 180 (Bom) 6. CIT vs. Bombay Conductor and Electricals Ltd. 301 ITR 328 (Guj) 7. Vatika Hotels (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2011) 45 SOT 59 (Del) 6. The Ld. DR on the other hand tried to justify orders of the authorities below. He submitted that in the case of present assessee appeal is permissible against the penalty levied u/s 271(D) of the Act by the AO, hence case of the assessee falls under clauses (a) and (b) to section 275 (1) and not under the clause (c) to section 275 (1) of the Act for computation of prescribed time limit for passing the penalty order. 7. Having gone through ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty proceedings are in respect of a default related to principal assessment for a particular assessment year and the penalty proceedings are required to be initiated in the course of those proceedings only. In cases falling under clause (c) penalty proceedings are to be completed within six months from the end of the month in which the proceedings during which the action for imposition of penalty is initiated are completed or six months from the end of the month in which action for imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever period expires later. The Hon ble High Court has accordingly approved the finding of the Tribunal on the question of limitation that the order of penalty should have been passed within six months from the end of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngly. The objection is accordingly allowed. 8. In the result cross objection is allowed. 9. In view of the above finding in the cross objection that the order of penalty passed u/s 271D is time barred, appeal preferred by the revenue (questioning the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271D of the Act accepting the contention of the assessee that there is book entries only and there was no payment of loan in cash hence provision u/s 269SS cannot be attracted, thus imposition of penalty is misconceived ) has become infructuous. The appeal of the revenue is thus dismissed as such. 10. In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed. In summary CO preferred by the assessee is allowed and appeal preferred by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
