9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1919X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee by: Shri R. Chandrashekar, Advocate Revenue by: Shri B.R. Ramesh, JCIT (DR) ORDER PER BENCH; All these appeals are filed by the assessee i.e. Shri Gopal S. Pandith for Assessment Years 2004-05 to 2009-10 in respect of penalty imposed by the AO u/s. 271D of the IT Act and by the same assessee for Assessment Years 2006-07 to 2009-10 in respect of penalty imposed by the AO u/s. 271E of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce, the matter should be restored back to the file of CIT (A) for fresh decision after deciding this technical aspect. The ld. DR of revenue supported the orders of authorities below. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that as per his order dated 11.03.2015, the ld. CIT(A) has decided five appeals in respect of Assessment Years 2004-05 and 2006-07 to 2009-10 in respect of penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in this order also, there is no decision regarding time barring aspect. As per the grounds of appeal raised before the CIT(A), it is seen that in all these eleven appeals, the time barring aspect was raised by the assessee as per ground no. 1 of the appeals in all these appeals which is not decided by CIT(A). Under these facts, we feel it proper to restore the entire matter back to the file of CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
