9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 364X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r imposition of penalty was initiated, with the caveat that the appellant/revenue had the benefit of taking advantage of whichever period expired later. In the facts that obtain in the instant case, the FY in the course of which the quantum proceedings, in the course of which the penalty proceedings were initiated, concededly culminated on 31.03.2011. On the other hand, the period of six months from the end of the month in which action for imposition of penalty was initiated ended on 30.06.2011. Concededly, the penalty order was passed way beyond the later date i.e., 30.06.2011. The record discloses that the penalty order was passed on 30.12.2011. We may note that the very same issue stands concluded against the appellant/revenue v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 269SS, he is liable to pay penalty equivalent to the sum taken or accepted as loan or deposit or specified sum. 6. Section 269SS of the Act, inter alia, discloses that no person shall take or accept loan or deposit or specified sum otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft or through the Electronic Credit System via a bank account. 7. The case of the appellant/revenue was that the respondent/assessee had accepted monies from 29 parties, which led to addition of Rs. 16,69,53,000/- under Section 69C and 68 of the Act. 8. Accordingly, against this backdrop, the Assessing Officer (AO) initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271D, 271E, and 271AAA. 9. The record shows that the CIT(A) via order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to pass the penalty order under the provisions referred to hereinabove. 14.1 Mr. Bhatia places reliance on Section 271E(2), which provides that the penalty imposable under sub-section (1) of the said section shall be imposed by the ACIT. 14.2 It is based on the language of sub-section (2) of section 271E that Mr. Bhatia argues that the AO could not have triggered the penalty proceedings and hence, the limitation would commence, as prescribed, only from the date when the ACIT issued the notice, i.e., 13.06.2011. 14.3 Therefore, based on this line of argument, Mr. Bhatia says that the limitation in this case expired only on 31.12.2011, and since the penalty order was passed on 30.12.2011, it was within the prescribed period of limi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 30.06.2011, is not confined only to this aspect of the matter. The appellant/ revenue, as noticed above, cannot extend the period of limitation by deciding at its whim and fancy when the notice has to be issued. The notice under Section 274 should have been issued before the period of limitation, as discussed above. 21. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the question of law which has been framed is answered against the appellant/ revenue and in favour of the respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
