9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o.260/2009-10 dated 24.10.2016 for the AY 1999-2000, ITA No.261/2009-10 dated 24.10.2016 for the AY 2001-02 & No.262/2009-10 dated 24.10.2016 for the AY 2002-03 respectively. 2. Mrs. Sumathi Venkatraman, JCIT represented on behalf of the Revenue and Shri G. Baskar, Adv. represented on behalf of the assessee. 3. It was submitted by the Ld.AR that during the course of assessment the AO had noticed that the assessee has accepted cash loans in excess of Rs. 20,000/- violating the provisions of Sec.269 SS of the Act. It was a submission that the Assessment Order was passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Salem. It was a submission that the show cause notice for levy of penalty u/s.271D was issued by the Dy. Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ew was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 386 ITR 719 wherein the civil appeal filed by the Revenue against the Rajasthan High Court in 291 ITR 244 had been confirmed. It was a further submission that the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Narayani & Sons Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2016) 141 DTR 315 (Cal) has categorically held that in Para Nos.12 - 15 as follows: 12. Sec. 274 lays down the procedure for imposition of penalty. Sub-s. (1) of s.274 provides for affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee before an order imposing penalty is passed. Though s. 271D vests the jurisdiction of imposing penalty solely in the Jt. CIT, it is silent as regards initiation of the proceedings. The question is, can such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imposable exceeding a sum of Rs. 1000 was required to be referred by him to the IAC, who had the jurisdiction to impose penalty exceeding a sum of Rs. 1000. Question arose whether in a case involving penalty imposable exceeding a sum of Rs. 1000, the AO could initiate the proceedings by issuing a notice. That question was answered by the Supreme Court in the affirmative. Their Lordships in the case of D.M. Manasvi vs. CIT 1972 CTR (SC) 437: (1972) 86 ITR 557 (SC), held as follows: "We are also not impressed by the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that the proceedings for the imposition of penalty were initiated not by the ITO but by the IAC when the matter had been referred to him under s. 274(2) of the Act. The proceedings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the levy of penalty be upheld. 6. We have considered the rival submissions. Admittedly, the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court decision in the case of Hissaria Bros. reported in 291 ITR 244 wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan has held that once show cause notice is issued by the AO then the time limit would run from that show cause notice. This view has also be confirmed by the Apex Court in 386 ITR 719. This is also view of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Narayani & Sons Pvt. Ltd. On perusal of the Circular issued by the CBDT shows that, CBDT is relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Grihalakshmi Vision reported in 379 ITR 100. This is a decision dated 08.07.2015. The Hon'ble Apex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
