9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 437X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... finally adjudicated. We find no force on the contention advanced by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner. Writ petition has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. - Writ Petition No. 536/2018 - - - Dated:- 1-3-2018 - Hon'ble Shri P.K. Jaiswal And Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Awasthi, JJ. Shri Sumeet Nema, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Manoj Munshi, learned counsel for the petitioner Ms. Veena Mandlik, learned counsel for the respondent ORDER Per P.K. Jaiswal, J:- By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is praying for quashment of show cause notice dated 22.9.2017, issued by the Joint Director of Income Tax under Section 271D / 271E, on the ground that, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions of Section 269-SS and 269-T of the Income Tax Act, seeking explanation as to why penalty for violation of provisions of Section 269-SS and 269-T shall not be attracted. The show cause notice Annexure P/5 reads as under :- To, Shri Nitin Agrawal 76, Mall Road, Mhow, Distt. Indore 453441 Sub: Show cause notice during the course of assessment proceedings u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) for A.Y. 2009-10 to 2014-15 and u/s 143(3) for A.Y. 2015-16 reg. In connection with the pending proceedings mentioned above, you are hereby show caused on the issued mentioned below, the issue-wise reply is required vide this show cause failing which it shall be assumed that you have nothing to say on the issue/issue and addit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s as under :- On the basis of above sheet, it is clear that during A.Y. 2009-10 cash loan received by Shri Nitin Agrawal from PATH is ₹ 31,49,500/-. Also during A.Y.2009-10 cash loan repaid by Shri Nitin Agrawal to PATH is ₹ 15,75,700/-. Further it is clear that during A.Y. 2010-11 cash loan received by Shri Nitin Agrawal from PATH is ₹ 29,94,800/-. Also during AY 2009-10 cash loan repaid by Shri Nitin Agrawal to PATH is ₹ 27,800. Further, the matter is being referred to Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Indore for issuing notice and imposing penalty u/s 271D and 271E of the 'Act' 5. From the notice Annexure P/5 as well as the assessment order dated 28.12.2016, nothing was mentioned about ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... both proceedings cannot be mixed up. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, on the basis of Assessment Order, in the case of the petitioner under Section 153 A read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act on 20.12.2016, referred the case to the respondent for initiation of penalty proceeding under Section 271-D and 271-E of the Act in Assessment Year 2009-10 and 2011, vide letter dated 27.4.2017, on receiving the information from the office by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, the respondent issued first notice under Section 271-D and 271-E on 22.9.2017 to the petitioner. Hence, the penalty proceeding has been initiated w.e.f. 22.9.2017, which is getting barred on 31.3.2018. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax is not empowered to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tal Finlease Ltd. (2015) 378 ITR 640 (Del) , Commissinoer of Income Tax (Central) 2 V/s. Mahesh Wood Products Pvt. Ltd., (2017) 394 ITR 312 (Delhi) , the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Hissaria Brothers, (2016) 386 ITR 719 (SC), and the decision of Delhi High court in the case of CIT V/s. JKD Capital Finlease Ltd., (2015) 378 ITR 640 (Del). 10. He also placed reliance on the decision of the Rajasthan High court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Jitendra Singh Rathore, 2013 (352) ITR 327 (Raj), Grihalakshmi Vision V/s. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, 2015 379 ITR 100 (Ker), Income Tax Officer V/s. Ramkishore Rewaram Tada, 2006 202 CTR (MP) 404 and the decision of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the court. In all those matters, the notice was issued by the Assessing Officer on the date of which the assessing order was passed or after passing of the assessment order. In the present case, the Assessing Officer issued show cause to the petitioner under Section 269- SS and 269(2) of the Income Tax Act to examine vide show cause notice dated 20.12.2016, ie., during the pendency of the assessment proceedings to examine the violation of these provisions of the Income Tax Act. No notice under Section 270-D or 279-E read with Section 279 of the Income Tax Act was ever issued by the Assessing Officer. The petitioner was wrongly attempted to establish the show cause notice dated 20.12.2016 as a legal notice under Section 271-D / 271-E read w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
