2025 (3) TMI 992

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... arred as the demand notice was required to be submitted alongwith penalty order, which was not done in the present case, the same is rendered academic as the penalty order itself has been held as time barred and the assessee has succeeded on first ground itself. Decided in favour of assessee.
Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Member, And Shri Naveen Chandra, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri R.C. Roy, CA For the Department : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, A.M:- This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 14.02.2023 for A.Y 2017-18. 2. The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the impugned penalty of Rs. 67 lakhs imposed by the Assessing Officer and c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n 31.01.2020. However, in the case of the assessee, penalty u/s 271D was imposed by the JCIT vide order dated 28.02.2020. The ld. counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mahesh Wood Products Pvt Ltd 2017-TIOL-1121-HC-DEL-IT order dated 05.05.2017. 7. Another argument of the ld. counsel for the assessee is that since the demand notice was required to be submitted alongwith penalty order, which was not done in the present case, therefore, penalty is time barred on that count also. For this proposition, the ld. counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalyan Kumar Ray 191 ITR 634. 8. On the other hand, the ld. DR vehemently a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... January, 2013. Therefore, the penalty orders issued on 26th February 2013 were clearly barred by limitation." 10. In the instant case, the Assessing Officer has issued reference to the JCIT on 31.07.2019, and therefore, following the decision of hon'ble Delhi High Court in Mahesh Wood Products above, the penalty order should have been passed within six months i.e. 31.01.2020. As the JCIT has passed order u/s 271D of the Act on 28.2.2020, we are of the considered opinion that the same is outside the prescribed limit u/s 275(1)(c) of the Act and therefore, time barred. 11. Regarding the second proposition that penalty is time barred as the demand notice was required to be submitted alongwith penalty order, which was not done in the present .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X