9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1006X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - - Dated:- 23-1-2015 - SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant Shri R. K. Ram, D. R. For The Respondent Shri K. R. Rastogi, C. A. ORDER PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. The appeal is filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objection is filed by the assessee, which are directed against the order of CIT(A)-II, Lucknow dated 08/10/2012 for assessment year 2008-09. 2. In its appeal, the Revenue has raised the following grounds: 1. The order of the learned CIT(A)-II, Lucknow is bad in law and erroneous on the facts of the case. 2. The learned CIT(A)-II, Lucknow has wrongly adjudicated that the transaction is beyond the ambit of section 269T of the Act. 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xpiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for the imposition of penalty has been 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. 6.1 From the above provisions, it is seen that penalty order is time barred in the present case on the expiry of six months from the end of the month in which the action for penalty is initiated. In the facts of the present case, the date of reference by the Assessing Officer to Addl. C.I.T. for imposition of penalty is 21/10/2010 and if the period of six months is counted from 31.10.2010, the same expires on 30/06/2011 and the penalty order has been passed on 28th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aper book. As per page No. 14 of the paper book, the amount was brought in by Shri Dhananjay Singh by way of cheque on 09/04/2007. The amount was refunded on 30/04/2007 and on 1st May 2007 by way of two cheques each of ₹ 3,00,000/- in the name of Shri Ashok Kumar Pathak Contractor and the same was credited in his bank account. Although the amount was not repaid by way of cheque in favour of the payee Shri Dhananjay Singh but in any case, the amount was paid by way of account payee cheque only but this fact is not relevant in the present case because in the present case, the amount in dispute is not repayment of loan but repayment of partners capital account and therefore, penalty u/s 271E is not applicable as per the judgment of Hon&# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
