9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1484X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se, the Ld CIT(A) erred in accepting the additional evidence under rule 46A when adequate opportunities were already provided to the assessee during the penalty proceedings ? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in concluding that penalty is barred by limitation whereas the limitation starts from the date of receipts of CIT(A) order in the CIT office, which is 06.04.2010, therefore time baring limit for passing Penalty Order is 31.03.2012 ? 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in treating the repayment as share capital instead of loans as held by AO and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) in Quantum appeal ? 4. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous and is not tenab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. Thus, in any case the penalty order should have been passed within the financial year itself in which the penalty proceedings were initiated or within six months from the end of the month in which the penalty proceedings were initiated, whichever period expires later, and in the present case the penalty order could have been passed on or before 30.06.2008. Therefore, the penalty order passed u/s 271E on 20.03.2012 is barred by limitation and deserves to be quashed on this ground alone." 3. The Assessing Officer is aggrieved of the relief so granted by the ld. CIT(A) and is in appeal before us. 4. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case in the light of the applicable lega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing from clause (c) of section 275(1) to make out this distinction very clear. We are, therefore, of the opinion that since penalty proceedings for default in not having transactions through the bank as required under sections 269SS and 269T are not related to the assessment proceeding but are independent of it, therefore, the completion of appellate proceedings arising out of the assessment proceedings or the other proceedings during which the penalty proceedings under sections 271D and 271E may have been initiated has no relevance for sustaining or not sustaining the penalty proceedings and, therefore, clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 275 cannot be attracted to such proceedings. If that were not so clause (c) of section 275(1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. What has been decided by the learned CIT(A) is a purely legal issue and his order is in consonance with the law laid down by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court. We uphold the stand of the learned CIT(A) and decline to interfere in the matter.
7. In the result, appeal is dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court today on 27th March, 2015. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
