9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... expire on 30th June, 2009. In this case, admittedly, the penalty order(s) were passed on 29th September, 2009, and therefore, the ITAT rightly concluded that the order(s) were barred by limitation. Consequently, we answer the question of law against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee by holding that, in the facts and circumstances of the present appeals, the ITAT was correct in law in deleting the penalty imposed by the ACIT, under section 271D on the ground that the penalty order(s) dated 29th September, 2009, was passed beyond the time period prescribed by Section 275(1)(c). In view of the aforesaid observations and respectfully following the judicial precedent relied upon hereinabove, we hold that the penalty order passed on 27.5.2016 is barred by limitation and hence quashed. Even on merits, the issue is covered by the decision of Dhir Global Industries (P) Ltd. [ 2008 (7) TMI 6 - HIGH COURT DELHI ] wherein it was held as examined Form 16-A, which is a form in which the TDS certificate is to be issued in terms of rule 31(1)(b) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. It is apparent from an examination of the said form that the TDS certificate can only be issued after the TDS amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cause in not issuing the Form 16A to the deductees in time. 4. The Assistant Commissioner of Income made a reference to the ld. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (ld. JCIT) for initiating penalty proceedings u/s 272A(2)(g) of the Act on 2.6.2015. The ld. JCIT issued penalty notice to the assessee on 30.11.2015 showcausing the assessee as to why the penalty u/s 272A(2)(g) of the Act should not be levied on the assessee for the delayed issuance of TDS certificates to the deductees. Ultimately the penalty order u/s 272A(2)(g) of the Act stood passed by the ld. JCIT on 27.5.2016 levying penalty on the assessee of Rs 24,59,362/- as per the following table:- FY 2012-13 Quarterly Returns Type of TDS Certificates Due date of issuance of certificates to the deductees Actual date of issuance of certificates Delay (No. of Days) Total No. of Deductees Quarterly return- wise Penalty u/s 272A(2)(g) (in Rs. ) A. B. C. D. E. F. G.* Q1 Form 16A 30.07.2012 18.01.2013 172 161 12,45,000/- Q2 Form 16A 30.10.2012 15.02.2013 108 140 7,69,400/- Q3 Form 16A 30.01.2013 16.02.2013 17 129 1,83,124/- Q4 Form 16A 30.05.2013 18.06.2013 19 171 2,61,838/- Total 24,59,362/- 5. As stated earlier, since the TDS remit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that arises for our consideration is as to whether the said penalty order passed by the Ld. JCIT on 29/11/2017 is within the time prescribed under the statute. For this purpose, it would be relevant to reproduce the provisions of section 275(1) of the Act:- 275. 15 [(1)] No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be passed 16 [(a) in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject-matter of an appeal to the 17 [***] Commissioner (Appeals) under section 246 18 [or section 246A] or an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under section 253, after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed 19 , or six months from the end of the month in which the order of the 20 [***] Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Appellate Tribunal is received by the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, whichever period expires later: 21 [Provided that in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject-matter of an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 246 or section 246A, and the Commissioner (Appeals) passes the order on or after t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , wherein the following facts were prevalent:- (a) Quantum Proceedings were completed in December 2008 (b) Penalty Proceedings u/s 271D of the act were initiated by the Ld. AO in December 2008 (c) Show cause notice was issued by the Ld. JCIT u/s 271D of the Act on 24/03/2009. (d) Penalty order u/s 271D of the Act was passed by the Ld. JCIT on 29/09/2009. 5.1. The Hon 'ble Jurisdictional High Court held that due date for passing the penalty order would be 30/06/2009 and held that the penalty order passed on 29/09/2009 is barred by limitation by observing as under: 8. The contention of the learned senior standing counsel for the Revenue that the date of the issuance of the SCNs would be the relevant starting point i.e., 24th March, 2009, was specifically noted and rejected by this Court in the Mahesh Wood Products (P.) Ltd. (supra). The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows: 7. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the Revenue has sought to place reliance on the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income- tax (TDS) v. IKEA Trading Hong Kong Ltd., [2011] 333 ITR 565 (Del) to urge that it is the date of issuance of the Show Cause Notice ('SCN') that w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee on March 12, 2012, requiring it to explain as to why penalty should not be levied on it under section 271E on account of violation or the provisions of section 269T of the Act. With the assessee having failed to furnish the required information, the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax proceeded to confirm the penalty in the sum of Rs. 17,90,000. ** ** ** 6. Mr. Kamal Sawhney, learned senior standing counsel appearing for the Revenue, submitted that the Assessing Officer has no power to initiate the penalty proceedings under section 271E of the Act and it was only the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax 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 Commissioner of Income-tax issued notice to the assessee on March 12, 2012, the order of the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax passed on March 20, 2012, was within limitation. 7. We are unable to agree with the above submission of learned standing counsel for the Revenue. Section 275(1)(c) reads as under: 275. (1) No order imposing a penal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich the penalty order could have been passed is 30th June, 2009. The six months from the end of the month from which action of imposition of penalty was initiated would expire on 30th June, 2009. However, in this case, admittedly, the penalty order(s) were passed on 29th September, 2009, and therefore, the ITAT rightly concluded that the order(s) were barred by limitation. 13. Consequently, we answer the question of law against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee by holding that, in the facts and circumstances of the present appeals, the ITAT was correct in law in deleting the penalty imposed by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, under section 271D of the Act, on the ground that the penalty order(s) dated 29th September, 2009, was passed beyond the time period prescribed by Section 275(1)(c) of the Act, the same having been passed after the lapse of six months from the end of the month in which the penalty proceedings were initiated by the AO. 14. Accordingly, the present appeals are dismissed. 6. In view of the above observations and respectfully following the judicial precedent relied upon herein above, we have no hesitation to conclude that the penalty orders frame ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
