9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 364X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pon to adjudicate on two appeals filed by the appellant/revenue, against orders dated 09.09.2016 and 28.10.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, "CIT(A)"] for AY 2008-09. 4. The record also discloses that the penalty proceedings were initiated against respondent/assessee for violating the provisions of Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short 'the Act']. Section 271D is tied in with the provisions of Section 269SS of the Act. 5. Thus, if the person takes or accepts any loan or deposit or specified sums in contravention of Section 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 p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roceedings, 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. 13. Concededly, the penalty order was passed way beyond the later date i.e., 30.06.2011. 13.1 The record discloses that the penalty order was passed on 30.12.2011. 14. Mr Ruchir Bhatia, Senior Standing Counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue, says that the AO was not empowered 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 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learly of the view that the notice issued by the JCIT 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
