TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 627X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act deleted – Decided in favour of Assessee. - I.T.A. No.1736/Mum/2012 - - - Dated:- 28-2-2014 - Shri B. R. Mittal, JM And Shri B. R. Baskaran, AM,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Satish Chandak For the Respondent : Shri Surendra Kumar, DR ORDER Per B. R. Baskaran, AM : The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 9.12.2011 passed by the ld CIT(A)-30 Mumbai and it relates to the AY 2001-02. The assessee is questioning the validity of the penalty order passed u/s 271B of the Act. 2 The ld counsel for the assessee submitted that the penalty order passed by the AO u/s 271B of the Act is barred by limitation. He submitted that the AO issued notices two times u/s 271B of the Act. The first ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te proceedings, wherein it is stated that the assessment order was passed on 09-02-2003. The Addl. CIT, who forwarded the remand report, has expressed the view that the penalty proceeding is not barred by limitation u/s 275(1)(a) of the Act, since it was taken during the course of assessment proceedings. The Ld CIT(A) also took the view that the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271B is linked with the assessment proceedings and since the order of Ld CIT(A) on the quantum proceedings was passed on 8.3.2005, the penalty proceedings get revived after the receipt of appellate order of Ld CIT(A) in quantum proceedings. Accordingly, he has upheld the penalty order passed by the AO. 5. The limitation for imposing penalty is prescribed u/s 275 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 4 In the instant case, the penalty proceedings have been initiated on 06.10.2003 and also again on 09.02.2004. But the penalty order has been passed only after 03.03.2006 and hence the impugned penalty order is barred by limitation. Even, if is considered for a moment that the provisions of clause (a) is applicable, then also the impugned order is barred by limitation, since it was passed after expiry of about one year from the date of the order of Ld CIT(A) passed in the quantukm proceedings. 5. Accordingly, we find merit in the contention of the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
