9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 713X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Chapter- XXI of the Act falls on or before 30.09.2021 and in our considered view, the said "due date" is beyond the period specified under the provisions of TOLA i.e., between 20.03.2020 and 31.03.2021 and, therefore, the Notification issued by the CBDT dated 17.09.2021 does not extend the due date for passing the order imposing penalty u/sec.271D of the Act in the present case up-to 30.09.2021. Therefore, arguments advanced by Revenue in light of CBDT's Notification dated 17.09.2021 does not hold good and, therefore, rejected. Considering the facts of the case and also by following the Judgment of Mahesh Wood Products Pvt. Ltd.[2017 (5) TMI 433 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and Shri Subramaniam Thanu [2024 (3) TMI 879 - ITAT CHENNAI] we are of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/sec.271D of the Act. 2.1. Thereafter, the Joint Commissioner/Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax-NFAC Unit, issued show cause notice dated 30.03.2021 u/sec.271D of the Act and called upon the assessee to explain as to why penalty shall not be levied for contravention of provisions of sec.269SS of the Act. In response to the said show cause notice, the assessee filed her explanation and argued that she was accepted cash loans from various parties because of non-availability of banking facilities in the place where she resides and further, the creditors were directly deposited cash into her bank account. The Assessing Officer after considering the reply furnished by the assessee observed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt, though, the date on which the Assessing Officer has recommended for issue of show cause notice is not clear, however, undoubtedly, it has to be prior to the issue of first show cause notice by the Assessing Officer on 30.03.2021 and thus, in view of facts of the case and respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mahesh Wood Products P Ltd., (supra) and of Hon'ble ITAT Chennai in the case of Shri Subramaniam Thanu (supra), the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer is barred by limitation and thus, quash the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal and the assessee has filed cross objection by r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as rightly quashed the order passed by the Assessing Officer imposing penalty u/sec.271D of the Act which is further supported by the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs., Mahesh Wood Products Pvt. Ltd., ITA.No.786 of 2016, dated 05.05.2017 and also the decision of ITAT, Chennai in the case of DCIT vs. Shri Subramaniam Thanu in ITA.Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023, order dated 13.03.2024. Further, he also relied on the decision of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Vishwanath Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Range-5, Delhi in ITA.Nos.611 to 618/Del./2022 order dated 26.07.2024 and argued that if the penalty proceedings are not initiated during the course of assessment proceedings, then, assumption of jurisdiction to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Wood Products Pvt. Ltd., (supra) and decision of ITAT, Chennai in the case of DCIT vs. Shri Subramaniam Thanu (supra), wherein it has been clearly held that in terms of sec.275(1)(c) of the Act, it would be the date on which the Assessing Officer wrote a letter to the PCIT recommending to issue show cause notice and if the Competent Authority decide to issue a show cause notice, the limitation would begin to run from the date of letter of the Assessing Officer recommending 'initiation' of the penalty proceedings. In the instant case, if we go by the said 'initiation' date i.e., 30.03.2021, any order passed beyond the six months from the end of the relevant month in which show cause notice issued u/sec.271D of the Act i.e., dated 25.01.2022 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 30.03.2021. Therefore, in our considered view, the completion of action relates to passing of any order for imposing of penalty under Chapter- XXI of the Act falls on or before 30.09.2021 and in our considered view, the said "due date" is beyond the period specified under the provisions of TOLA i.e., between 20.03.2020 and 31.03.2021 and, therefore, the Notification issued by the CBDT dated 17.09.2021 does not extend the due date for passing the order imposing penalty u/sec.271D of the Act in the present case up-to 30.09.2021. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the arguments advanced by the learned Sr. AR for the Revenue in light of CBDT's Notification dated 17.09.2021 (supra), does not hold good and, therefore, rejected. 8. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
