TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Revenue : Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR ORDER Per N. K. Saini, AM These two appeals by the department are directed against the separate orders each dated 10.09.2013 of ld. CIT(A)-I, New Delhi. 2. The grievance of the assessee in these appeals relates to the deletion of penalties of ₹ 1,71,94,800/- each levied by the AO under Sections 271D and 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. During the Course of hearing the ld. Counsel for the assessee raised the issue of limitation under Rule 27 of Income Tax (AT) Rules, 1963. As the Ld. CIT(A) had considered this ground of the assessee and decided the issue against the assessee, we hold that the assessee is entitled to raise this ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nths on 28.02.2013, as the action for imposition of penalty, i.e. issue of notice u/s 271D / 271E by the Addl.CIT, was taken on 22.08.2012. As the order was passed on 30.11.2012, it was within the period of limitation prescribed u/s 275(1 )(c). 4.5 In view of the above, this ground of appeal raised by the appellant is contrary to the law in the matter and is, accordingly, dismissed. 5. During the course of hearing the ld. Counsel for the assessee at the very outset stated that this issue is covered by the order dated 08.03.2016 of the ITAT Delhi Bench F , New Delhi in the case of DCIT, Central Circle-03, New Delhi Vs M/s Raj Katha Products P. Ltd. in ITA Nos.5853, 5854, 5855, 5857, 5858, 5859/Del/2013 for the assessment years 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in which action for imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever period expires later. 9. In terms of the above provision, there are two distinct periods of limitation for passing a penalty order, and one that expires later will apply. One is the end of the financial year in which the quantum proceedings are completed in the first instance. In the present case, at the level of the AO, the quantum proceeding was completed on 28th December 2007. Going by this date, the penalty order could not have been passed later than 31st March 2008. The second possible date is expiry of six months from the month in which the penalty proceedings were initiated. With the AO having initiated the penalty proceedings in December 2007, the last date by w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present case, we hold that all the impugned orders levying penalty are barred by Limitation. The penalty order should have been passed not later than 30th June, 2012. As the impugned order is passed beyond this date, all the appeals are barred by Limitation. Hence all the Revenue appeals are dismissed. 8. So, respectfully following the aforesaid referred to order dated 08.03.2016 in the case of DCIT, Central Circle- 03, New Delhi Vs M/s Raj Katha Products P. Ltd. (supra), we decide the issue in favour of the assessee and hold that the impugned orders levying the penalties under Sections 271D and 271E of the Act are barred by limitation because the penalty order should have been passed not later than 30.06.2012, however, in the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
