9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated 25.02.2016 by the JCIT (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO). 2. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding that the penalty levied u/s 271C of the Act is barred by limitation in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee is engaged in the business of broadcasting television channel "Imagine TV" and had filed its return of income for the Asst. Year 2011-12 on 30.11.2011 declaring total loss of Rs. 262,04,18,432/-. As per clause 27(b) of Tax Audit Report, the Tax Auditor had reported that tax of Rs. 5,00,40,1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... two distinct periods of limitation for passing of penalty order is provided and one that expires later will apply. One is the end of the financial year in which the quantum proceedings are completed. In the instant case, the quantum proceedings were completed on 26.03.2014 and hence one deadline would be 31.03.2014. The second date would be expiry of 6 months from the month in which penalty proceedings were initiated. The dispute in the instant appeal is to give proper meaning for the expression 'expiry of 6 months from the month in which penalty proceedings were initiated', i.e. to say whether 6 months expiry should be reckoned from the date of which reference was made by ld. AO who passed the quantum assessment order to ld. JCIT (TDS) or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed below:- 7. Mr. Kamal Sawhney, learned Senior standing counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that the AO has no power to initiate the penalty proceedings under Section 271-E of the Act and it was only the Joint CIT who could have done so. Therefore, for the purpose of limitation under Section 275 (1) (c), the relevant date should be the date on which notice in relation to the penalty proceedings were issued. In the present case, as the Additional CIT issued notice to the Assessee on 12th March 2012, the order of the Additional CIT passed on 20th March, 2012 was within limitation. 8. ....... 9. ....... 10. Considering that the subject matter of the quantum proceedings was the non-compliance with Section 269 T of the Act, ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... though the final fact finding in this proceeding may not have any bearing on the issues relating to establishing default e.g. penalty for not deducting tax at source while making payment to employees, or contractor, or for that matter not making payment through cheque or demand draft where it is so required to be made. Either of the contingencies does not affect the computation of taxable income and levy of correct tax on chargeable income; if cl. (a) was to be invoked, no necessity of cl. (c) would arise." (emphasis supplied) 11. In fact, when the AO recommended the initiation of penalty proceedings the AO appeared to be conscious of the fact that he did not have the power to issue notice as far as the penalty proceedings under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
