9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 433X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 75(1)(c) it would be the date on which the AO wrote a letter to the ACIT recommending the issuance of the SCN. While it is true that the ACIT had the discretion whether or not to issue the SCN, if he did decide to issue a SCN, the limitation would begin to run from the date of letter of the AO recommending ‘initiation’ of the penalty proceedings. In the present case, the limitation in terms of Section 275 (1) (iii) of the Act began to run on 23rd July, 2012 and the last date for passing the penalty orders was 31st January, 2013. Therefore, the penalty orders issued on 26th February 2013 were clearly barred by limitation. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA 786/2016 & ITA 787/2016 - - - Dated:- 5-5-2017 - S. MURALIDHAR CHANDER SHE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the Assessee to show cause as to why penalty be not levied under Sections 271D and 271E of the Act as a result of the contravention of Sections 269SS and 269T of the Act. A further notice was sent on 25th September, 2012, seeking the Assessee s reply, which ultimately was submitted on 10th October, 2012. 4. In the reply itself, the Assessee contended that the penalty proceedings were barred by limitation under Section 275(1)(c) of the Act, which reads as under: 275. Bar of limitation for imposing penalties (1) No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be passed- (a) (b).... (c) in any other case, after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for the imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w Cause Notice ( SCN ) that would be the relevant starting point. Accordingly he submits that the date of issuance of the SCN by the ACIT being 28th August, 2012, limitation would expire on 28th February, 2013. Therefore, the penalty orders having been passed on 26th February, 2013 would not barred by limitation. He also sought to distinguish the decision of this Court in PCIT-5 v. JKD Capital Finlease Ltd.(supra) by stating that in the said case, the gap between the intimation send by the AO recommending initiation of penalty proceedings and the action taken by the ACIT was nearly five years, whereas in the present case, it was slightly over one month. 8. At the outset, the Court observes that no question arose in Commissioner o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
