9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1321X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spite service being effected. Therefore, in order to assist the court, we had appointed Mr Nischay Kantoor, Advocate, as an amicus curiae, in the proceedings held on 18.07.2023. 4. We have heard Mr Sanjay Kumar, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant/ revenue, and Mr Nischay Kantoor, learned amicus curiae. 5. After hearing learned counsels for the parties, in our view, the following substantial question of law requires consideration by the Court: (i) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, "Tribunal"] misdirected itself on facts and in law, in deleting the penalty imposed under Section 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, "Act"] on the ground that it was beyond the period of limitatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. Given the aforesaid facts, we need to construe the provision concerning limitation, with regard to the penalty proceedings. 9. The provision concerning limitation is Section 275 (1)(c) of the Act and it reads as follows: "Section 275. Bar of limitation for imposing penalties. (1) No order imposing penalty under this chapter should be passed - xxx xxx xxx (c) In any other case, after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, i[n the course of which action for imposition of penalty has been initiated], are completed, or six months from the end of the month in which action of imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever period expires later." 9.1 A perusal of the aforesaid provision shows that there are tw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment order was passed i.e., 31.12.2010, the second limb suggests that the period would extend by another six (6) months i.e., till 30.06.2011. 13. In this case, the assessment order, as noted above, was passed on 31.12.2010. 14. Mr. Kumar says that the AO was not empowered to pass the penalty order under the provisions referred to hereinabove. 15. The proceedings were initiated under Section 271AAA, and Section 271D as well the impugned penalty order confined itself to Section 271E. A careful perusal of the Section 271E would show that if the loan was deposited, and the specified advance was repaid by an assessee in violation of the provisions contained in Section 269T, then assessee becomes liable to pay penalty. The penalty which can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 13.06.2011 could not have extended the period of limitation, as prescribed under Section 275 (1)(c) of the Act. 20. In this case, what is required to be brought to the forefront is that the AO had taken prior approval of the ACIT, who is equal in rank to the JCIT, before triggering the penalty proceedings. Thus, although the decision to initiate penalty proceedings is found embedded in the assessment order dated 31.12.2010 and approval to frame the assessment order was given prior to the said date, the notice was issued only on 13.06.2011. 20.1 Even though this may be an additional factor in this particular case, our reasons for holding the limitation period as prescribed under Section 275 (1)(c) of the Act had expired latest by 30.06. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
