Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 2047 - AT - Income TaxValidity of order passed u/s 271E by the Addl.CIT - as per AO entries in the inventory seized during the course of Search and seized proceedings did not pertain to Current Account held by the assessee but that of repaid in cash which is a violation of Section 269T and liable for penalty u/s. 271E - CIT(A) deleted penalty - whether the assessee in an appeal filed by the Revenue against the issue which has been decided in favour of assessee, can argue against the jurisdictional ground which was decided by the CIT(A), against the assessee? - HELD THAT:- We find that the Rule permits the assessee to support the order of CIT(A) on any grounds, that have been decided against him even though he had not appealed against it. Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules provides that the assessee without having filed any cross appeal or Cross Objections can support the impugned order on any grounds decided against him. As relying on Jindal Polyster Ltd case [2017 (6) TMI 87 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] we find merit in the plea of assessee and proceed to decide the issue raised by the assessee by way of his arguments under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules. Period of limitation for initiating penalty proceedings - Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271E wherein penalty proceedings were initiated by the Addl.CIT after completion of assessment order - The issue raised in the present appeal is squarely covered by the decision of Hissaria Bros [2001 (8) TMI 295 - ITAT JODHPUR] Even the CBDT Circular issued on 26.04.2016 has clarified the position that regarding any violation of provisions of sections 269SS and 269T of the Act, as the case may be, the Assessing Officers below the rank of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax were advised to make a reference to the Range Head, in the course of assessment proceedings. It was also clarified that the Range Head will issue penalty notice and shall dispose / complete the proceedings within limitation prescribed under section 275(1)(c) of the Act. The said Circular issued by the CBDT is advisory and has only clarified the position and cannot be said to be prospective in application. Before parting, we may also refer to certain factual aspects. The assessment under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act was completed on 30.11.2007. The notice for initiation of penalty proceedings was issued on 11.03.2010 and order levying penalty was passed on 24.09.2010. There is inordinate delay in initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271E of the Act, which otherwise also cannot be condoned - Thus initiation of penalty proceedings is beyond the limitation provided in the Act and the penalty order on this account merits to be dismissed.
|