9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1484X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion, as set out in CIT vs. Worldwide Township Projects Ltd (2014 (6) TMI 47 - DELHI HIGH COURT ) the date on which CIT(A) had passed order in the quantum proceedings had no relevance as it did not have any bearing on the issue of penalty. Learned CIT(A) was thus quite justified in his conclusions. As for the ground taken in respect of violation of Rule 46-A, we have noticed that learned CIT(A) has not decided any factual aspects on merits nor has he admitted any additional evidence. In any event, no specific arguments were advanced in support of this grievance. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No.: 5443/Del/2013 - - - Dated:- 27-3-2015 - I.C. Sudhir, JM and Pramod Kumar, AM P. Dam Kaunajma, for the appellant Ashwan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but the penalty order was passed on 20th March, 2012. It is in this backdrop that the ld. CIT(A) has quashed the penalty order by holding it as time barred. While doing so, learned CIT(A) has observed as follows :- The Addl. CIT imposed the penalty u/s 271E vide order passed dated 20.03.2012 on a reference received from the AO, who initiated the penalty proceedings as per assessment order passed u/s 143(3) dated 28.12.2007, as is apparent from the last para of the assessment order. This action of the AO confirms that the impugned penalty u/s 271E was initiated on 28.12.2007. in the penalty order u/s 271E, in para 3 at first page, Additional CIT has stated that pursuant to the dismissal of the appeal the AO referred the matter regarding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of CIT vs. Worldwide Township Projects Ltd (269 CTR 444), Their Lordships has, in this regard, held as follows :- 5. Concededly, if Section 275(1)(c) of the Act is applicable, the penalty order is beyond the prescribed period. In the present case, the penalty sought to be imposed on the assessee is for alleged violation of Section 269SS of the Act. It is well settled that a penalty under this provision is independent of the assessment. The action inviting imposition of penalty is granting of loans above the prescribed limit otherwise than through banking channels and as such infringement of Section 269SS of the Act is not related to the income that may be assessed or finally adjudicated. In this view Section 275(1)(a) of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ducting 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. 6. The ITAT, following the aforesaid decision allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee. We do not find any infirmity with this view. 6. In view of the above legal position, and respectfully following the decision of Hon ble jurisdictional High Court, Learned CIT(A) rightly held that the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer was barred by limitation as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
