TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 356X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 28.05.2004 was clearly hit by the bar of limitation and has rightly been set aside in the orders impugned. In view of the above, our answer to the formulated question of law is that even when the authority competent to impose penalty under Section 271D was the Joint Commissioner, the period of limitation for the purpose of such penalty proceedings was not to be reckoned form the issue of first show cause by the Joint Commissioner; but the period of limitation was to be reckoned from the date of issue of first show cause for initiation of such penalty proceedings. For the purpose of present case, as observed hereinabove, for the proceedings having been initiated on 25.03.2003, the order passed by the Joint Commissioner under Section 27 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the hearing. 2. During the course of scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) the AO noticed that the assessee has received cash on various dates in person as well as in bank account and subsequently paid the amount in cash to M/s MPPL which is in contravention of the provisions of section 269SS and 269T of the Act. The AO called certain information from M/s MPPL, in response to which, the company had submitted that the assessee is having imprest account in the books of the company. The AO found that there was opening cash balance of ₹ 19,85,495/- on 01.04.2008 in the hands of the assessee and during the period the assessee has also received cash amounting to ₹ 1,48,22,585/- on various dates, the closing balance as on 31. 03 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing officer who is not competent to proceed with the penalty proceedings u/s 271D and 271E of the Act will be inconsequential for the purpose of deciding the limitation. Thus the ld. DR has contended that the ld. CIT(A) committed an error by computing the limitation for the purpose of passing the order u/s 271D and 271E of the Act from the date of the notice issued by the AO instead of the date of the notice issued by the JCIT. He has relied upon the decision of Hon ble Kerala High Court in case of Grihlaxmi vision Vs. CIT 379 ITR 100 and submitted that the Hon ble High Court has held that the penalty proceedings under the provisions of section 271D and 271E are initiated by the Joint commissioner. 4. On the other hand, the ld. AR of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e notices one by the ITO on 30.12.2011 and another by the Additional/Joint Commissioner on 10.09.2012, the same is not disputed by the Revenue. Therefore question arises whether the limitation for the purpose of levy of penalty u/s 271D and 271E would reckon from the date of show cause notice issued by the ITO. Though he was not competent the passed the order u/s 271D and 271E or from the date on which the show cause notice issued by the Additional/Joint Commissioner on 10.09.2012. The ld. AR has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon ble jurisdiction High Court in case of CIT vs. Jitendra Singh Rathore (supra) where as the ld. DR has relied upon the decision of Hon ble Kerala High Court in case of Girhlaxmi Vs. AIT (supra). We find tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Court in Hissaria Bros. (supra), completion of appellate proceedings arising out of assessment proceedings has no relevance over sustaining such penalty proceedings. As held clearly by this Court, in such a matter, clause (c) of Section 275 (1) would be applicable. Section 275(1)(c) could be noticed as under:- 275. Bar of limitation for imposing penalties. ( 1) No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be passed- ..... ( c) in any other case, after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for the 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, wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
