9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 220X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal, we are bound to follow the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. Since we are holding that the order passed by the authority is beyond the period of limitation, hence the orders passed by lower authorities were lacking jurisdiction, being passed beyond statutory period, null and void. therefore, we are not adjudicating any other ground on merit. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A No.110/Bang/2017 - - - Dated:- 28-2-2019 - Shri. A. K. Garodia, accountant member and shri. Laliet kumar, judicial member For the Assessee : Shri. Ramasubramanyam, CA For the Revenue : Shri. Vikram Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT ORDER PER LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER : The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O for violation of section 269AA for imposition of penalty u/s.271D to the JCIT on 25.03.2009 and finally order was passed by the JCIT on 25.11.2009 u/s.271D. 05. It was the submission of the Ld. AR that the order was passed after the statutory period of six months provided u/s.275(1)(c) of the Act. It was submitted that the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the matter of PCIT v. JKD Capital Finlease Ltd [378 ITR 614] and PCIT v. Mahesh Wood Products P. Ltd [394 ITR 312] had decided the issue in favour of the assessee and held that the initiation of proceedings would initiate, when the reference was made by the AO to the JCIT. Our attention was drawn to para 9 in the matter of Mahesh Wood Products P. Ltd (supra) to the following effect : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce is issued by the authority competent to issue notice in law. Therefore it was submitted that the notice was issued by the JCIT on 14.05.2009 and the order was issued on 25.11.2009 and the order passed by the Addl. CIT was within the period of limitation. 07. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. At the outset, we may mention that from the bare perusal of the finding recorded by the Hon ble Delhi High Court in para 9 of the judgment in the matter of Mahesh Wood Products P. Ltd (supra) squarely applies to the facts of the present case. However we feel that there is definitely a distinction between the initiation of the proceedings and reference of proceedings by the officer on 25.03.2009. In our view the initiat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
