9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been issued on 26.03.2006 by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Salem. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA Nos. 3132, 3133, 3134, 3135 And 3136/Mds/2016 - - - Dated:- 1-6-2017 - SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Mr.G.Baskar, Adv. For the Respondent : Mrs.Sumathi Venkatraman ORDER PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: ITA Nos.3132, 3133, 3134, 3135 3136/Mds/2016 are the appeals filed by the assessee against the Order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Salem, in ITA No.258/2009-10 dated 24.10.2016 for the AY 1997-98, ITA No.259/2009-10 dated 24.10.2016 for the AY 1998-99, ITA No.260/2009-10 dated 24.10.2016 for the AY ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n issued on 26.03.2006 by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Salem. It was a submission that as per the provisions of Sec.271D penalty was imposed under sub-section 1 only by the Joint Commissioner and as per the definition clause of 2(28C), Joint Commissioner included the Addl.CIT. It was a submission that the Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Hissaria Bros. reported in 291 ITR 244 has held that if the show cause notice is issued by the AO then the period of six months is to be reckoned from such show cause notice. He placed before us the copy of the decision of the Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Hissaria Bros. reported in 291 ITR 244. It was a submission that this view was upheld by the Hon ble Supr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upees, except with the prior approval of the Jt. CIT . 13. Prior to introduction of Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, Sub-s. (2) of s. 274 was as follows: (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in cl. (iii) of sub-s. (1) of s. 271, if in a case falling under cl. (c) of that sub-section, the minimum penalty imposable exceeds a sum of rupees one thousand, the ITO shall refer the case to the IAC who shall, for the purpose, have all the powers conferred under this Chapter for the imposition of penalty. 14. A plain reading of sub-s. (2) of s. 274, as it was, goes to show that before the said Act of 1975 was introduced, the AO had jurisdiction to impose penalty not exceeding a sum of ₹ 1000. A case involving penalty imposa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the apex Court it can be said that in a case falling under s. 271D the AO is not precluded from initiating the proceedings by issuing a notice. 4. It was a submission that the Penalty Order being barred by limitation, the same was liable to be quashed. 5. In reply, the Ld.DR vehemently supported the order of the AO and Ld.CIT(A). It was a submission that the CBDT has issued a Circular F.No.279/Misc./M-116/2012-ITJ dated 26.04.2016 wherein the departmental view in regard to this issue has been clarified. It was a submission that show cause notice issued by the AO was liable to be discarded and the limitation if any was to be considered from the date of the issuance of the show cause notice by the ACIT, Central Range, Coimbatore. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
