9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 341X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would not be covered under the provisions of Sec.269SS and 269T is to be rejected at the outset considering the fact that no such exception has been carved out in either of these statutory provisions. When the statutory mandate is clear, applying the doctrine of literal construction, no violence could be done to the explicit language of statute. Therefore, we reject these arguments of Ld. AR. Limitation argument - We find that the assessment was framed on 30-12-2019 wherein Ld. AO made reference to appropriate authority for imposition of impugned penalties. JCIT issued show-cause notice to the assessee on 26-05-2022 and completed penalty proceedings on 29-11-2022 which is well within the prescribed statutory limit. Argument that there was i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Respondent : Shri ARV Srinivasan, Addl. CIT, ORDER SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM 1. Aggrieved by confirmation of certain penalty u/s 271D 271E for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 vide impugned orders dated 23- 10-2023, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The penalty levied u/s 271D is subject matter of ITA No.1289/Chny/23 whereas penalty levied u/s 271E is subject matter of ITA No.1290/Chny/2023. 2. The Ld. AR advanced arguments on legal grounds as well as on merits which have been controverted by Ld. Sr. DR. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, our adjudication would be as under. Penalty Proceedings 3.1 Facts leading to penalty are that Ld. AO framed an assessment u/s 143(3) on 30-12-2019 making certain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted after lapse of more than 2 years would be time barred. The proceedings should be initiated within a reasonable period. 3.3 However, Ld. JCIT rejected the merits of the case by observing that when the loans were taken, the assessee had sufficient bank balance for its needs. The legal ground was rejected in terms of CBDT Circular No.9/DV/2-016 dated 26-04-2016 directing that time barring date for initiation of penalties u/s 271D 271E would start from show-cause notice issued by JCIT. Accordingly, Ld. JCIT imposed penalty of Rs.36.16 Lacs vide its order dated 29-11-2022. Similar penalty was levied u/s 271E on same date. 3.4 During appellate proceedings, the assessee drew attention to various factual errors and assailed the penalty on multi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of literal construction, no violence could be done to the explicit language of statute. Therefore, we reject these arguments of Ld. AR. 5. So far as the limitation argument is concerned, we find that the assessment was framed on 30-12-2019 wherein Ld. AO made reference to appropriate authority for imposition of impugned penalties. The Ld. JCIT issued show-cause notice to the assessee on 26-05-2022 and completed penalty proceedings on 29-11-2022 which is well within the prescribed statutory limit. The argument that there was inordinate delay between the date of reference and issue of show-cause notice is to be rejected considering the fact that substantial period falls within lockdown situation arising out of Covid-19 Pandemic and therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
