9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1564X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n initiated and completed on 31/03/2018. As per second condition of Section 275(1)(c) i.e. six months from the end of month in which action for imposition of penalty has been initiated will be expired on 30/06/2018. Additional CIT(A) has initiated penalty on 07/07/2018 whereas the same has been referred to him on 08/12/2017 itself, thus, in our considered opinion, the same is barred by limitation as per provision of Section 275(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, we have no hesitation to delete the orders of penalty - Decided against revenue. - Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia, Accountant Member And Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S., Judicial Member For the Assessee : Ms. Monika Agarwal, Adv Sh. Jayant Bothra, Adv For the Department : Sh. Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT DR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /12/2017 along with assessment records. The order of penalty came to be passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax on 24/09/2018 by imposing the penalty on the assessee u/s 271E and 271D of the Act respectively. Aggrieved by the orders of penalty, the assessee preferred Appeals before the CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 12/09/2019 allowed the Appeal filed by the assessee. As against the orders of the CIT(A), the Revenue preferred the above caption Appeals on the grounds mentioned. 4. The assessee filed an Application under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, contending that the assessee had raised a Ground before the Ld. CIT(A) that the initiation and imposing the penalty is barred by limitation as per Section 275(1C) of the Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore us as provided u/s 275 (1) (c) of the Act by supporting the decision of the CIT(A) which has been decided in favour of the Assessee. The Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sanjay Sawhney Vs. Pr. CIT [2020] 116 Taxmann.com 701/273 Taxman 332 (Delhi), held that Rule 27 of ITAT Rules is one of such Rules which provide additional right to the respondent to defend the order of CIT(A) decided in his favour by raising the issues in respect of those grounds which were decided against him by the CIT(A) even though no appeal/cross objection has been filed. Thus, we allow the Application filed by the Assessee under rule 27 of ITAT Rules by permitting the Assessee to defend the order of the CIT(A) raising the issue in respect of the Ground of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer to the Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-5, New Delhi for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271E and 271D of the Act respectively. 9. The provisions of Section 271(5)(1)(c) provides for limitation to initiate penalty u/s 271D and 271E of the Act, which reads as under: No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be passed (a) 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 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, or six months f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for imposition of penalty either u/s 271D or 271E would be the expiry of Financial Year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed, or six months from the end of the month in which action for imposition of penalty is initiated whichever period expires later. 11. The CBDT vide Circular No. 10/2016 dated 26/04/2016 has clarified that the limitation for the purpose of levying the penalty u/s 271D and 271E of the Act is to be determined as per Section 275(1)(c) of the Act. The relevant extract from the Circular are reproduced as under:- 3. In view of the above, it is a settled position that the period of limitation of penalty proceedings under sections 271D and 271E of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting on the said recommendation. The Court held that the starting point would be the initiation of penalty proceedings. Given the scheme of Section 275(1 )(c) it would be the date on which the AO wrote ! letter to the ACIT recommending the issuance of the SCN. While it is true that the ACIT had the discretion whether or not to issue the SCN, if he did decide to issue a SCN, the limitation would begin to run from the date of letter of the AO recommending initiation of the penalty proceedings. 13. In the present case, admittedly, the recommendation has been made by the A.O. for initiation of penalty was on 08/12/2017. As per the first condition of Section 275(1)(c) i.e. expiry of the Financial Year in which the proceedings, in the course of w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
