9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1510X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IMHA CHARY, JM Challenging the order dated 9.9.2016 in Appeal No.237/11-12 for the Assessment Year 2008-09 by the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-XXVI, New Delhi, {hereinafter referred to as "the CIT(A)"}, revenue preferred this appeal. 2. The short question that arises for our consideration in this appeal is whether the proceedings for levy of penalty are initiated with the passing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 13.6.2011 and was replied by the assessee on 20.6.2011. Order u/s 271E of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") was passed on 30.12.2011 levying the penalty of Rs. 3,00,65,000/-. 3. Assessee challenged the same before the learned CIT(A) and contended that since the penalty proceeding were initiated in the course of the assessment proceedings in the FY 2010-11, no penalty orders can be passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tal and Finlease Ltd., ITA No.780/2015 and deleted the penalty. Revenue is, therefore, before us in this appeal stating that the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the order was passed within six months of initiation of proceedings by the ld. Addl. CIT which was competent to levy the penalty and, therefore, the penalty of Rs. 3,00,65,000/- should not have been deleted on the ground of limita ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lakshmi Vision (supra). However, learned CIT(A) in his order noticed the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High court in the case of IKD Capital & Finlease Ltd. (supra), but also the Circular No.9 dated 26.4.2016 issued by CBDT wherein it was observed that where any High Court decides this issue on the aspect of limitation contrary to the department view thereon, shall not be operative in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
