9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1205X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tiated during the course of assessment proceedings. The penalty order passed by Addl. Commissioner of Income tax on 30-03-2010 is barred by limitation. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A.No.54/Vizag/2016 - - - Dated:- 22-3-2018 - SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU R.L. REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri Y.A.Rao, AR For The Respondent : Shri R.S.Aravindakshan,DR ORDER PER Shri B.R. BASKARAN, Accountant Member: The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 19.11.2015 passed by the Ld.Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]-2, Visakhapatnam confirming the penalty of ₹ 6,45,000/- levied by the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax u/s 271D of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccounts, since they do not have bank in their villages. The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax was not convinced with the explanations of the assessee and accordingly levied penalty of ₹ 6,45,000/- u/s 271D of the Act for violation of the provisions of section 269SS. S.No. Name of the Person Date Amount 1. Mahanti Satyam Naidu 1.6.2005 1,00,000 2. Kandi Chandra Shekar Rao 1.6.2005 1,00,000 3. Mahanti Bhaskara Rao 1.7.2005 50,000 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngly, the time limit for passing the order u/s 271D of the Act was available upto 31.12.2009. Since the impugned penalty order was passed on 30.03.2010, the Ld.AR contended that the same is barred by limitation. 6. The Ld.DR on the contrary, supported the orders passed by the tax authorities. 7. Having heard the rival submissions, we are of the view that there is merit in the contentions of the assessee. We have noticed earlier that the AO has stated in the assessment order that the penalty proceedings u/s 271D of the Act are being initiated separately. The assessing officer, in the present case, is Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. As per sec. 271D(2) of the Act, the penalty u/s 271D(1) shall be imposed by the Joint Commissioner, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs. For this proposition, we rely upon the decision rendered by Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hissaria Bros (291 ITR 244), which has been referred by the very same High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jitendra Singh Rathore (I.T Appeal No.90 of 2007 dated 10-01-2014) as under:- 7. After having given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and having examined the record, we are clearly of the view that this appeal remains meritless and the formulated question deserves to be answered against the appellant particularly for the view already taken by this Court in the case of CIT v. Hissaria Bros. [2007] 291 ITR 244, wherein, this Court has specifically held as under:- 38. We are, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
