Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Income Tax Officer, Ward-4 (4) , Jaipur Versus Shri Prashant Sharma And Vice-Versa

2017 (12) TMI 356 - ITAT JAIPUR

Penalty u/s 271D as well as 271E - point of reckoning of limitation from the date of issuing the notice by the ITO or by the JCIT - bar of limitation - authority competent to impose penalty - Held that:- In the present case, the first show cause notice for initiation of proceedings was issued by the AO on 25.03.2003 and was served on the assessee on 27.03.2003. Obviously, the later period also expired on 30.09.2003 when six months expired from the end of the month in which the action for imposin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

koned 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 271D on 28.05.2004 was hit by the bar of limitation. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal have, thus, not committed any error in setti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

passed u/s 271D and 271E for the A.Y. 2009-10. The Revenue has raised the following grounds as under:- In ITA No. 960/JP/2016 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting the penalty of ₹ 1,48,22,585/- imposed u/s 271D as the loan/deposits were accepted/received in cash by the assessee? 2. The appellant craves its rights to add, amend or alter any of the grounds on or before the hearing. In ITA No. 961/JP/2016 1. Whether on .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 da .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he show cause notice was issued by the Joint Commissioner who is competent to pass the penalty orders. The AO after considering the facts and circumstances of the case rejected the contention of the assessee and passed the orders of levy of penalty u/s 271D as well as 271E of the Act. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the CIT(A) and raised the issue of validity of the impugned orders passed by the Joint Commissioner u/s 271D and 271E being barred by limitation as provided u/s 2 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

re, any notice issued by the Assessing 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 o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the ACIT on 10.09.2012. Finally the impugned orders u/s 271D and 271E were passed on 25.03.2013 which are beyond the limitation provided u/s 275(1)(c) of the act. He has relied upon the decision of Hon ble jurisdiction High Court in case of CIT vs. Jitendra Singh Rathore 352 ITR 327. Thus the ld. AR has contended that the ld. CIT(A) has followed the decision of the Hon ble jurisdiction High Court and therefore no fault cannot be found in the impugned orders of the CIT(A). 5. We have considered .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

71E being barred by limitation as these orders dated 25.03.2013 as per the assessees were beyond the period of 6 months from the date of the first show cause notice dated 30.11.2011 the limitation as provided u/s 275(1)(c) of the Act. So far as the fact of issuing two show cause 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 pe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Vs. AIT (supra). We find that there are divergent view on this point of reckoning of limitation from the date of issuing the notice by the ITO or by the JCIT. The Hon ble jurisdiction High Court has taken a view that even though the AO was not competent to pass order u/s 271D and 271E the limitation would reckon from the date of show cause notice was issued by the AO whereas, the Hon ble Kerala High Court held that the proceedings for levy of penalty u/s 271D and 271E are initiated with issuance .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s held in para 8 to 10 as under:- 8. In the present case, the notice for issuance of the penalty proceedings under Section 271D of the Act for the alleged contravention of provisions of Section 269SS was issued to the assessee, of course by the AO, on 25.03.2003. Even if the matter had otherwise been in appeal before the CIT(A) against the original assessment order and the appeal was decided on 13.02.2004, the same was hardly of relevance so far the penalty proceedings under Section 271D were co .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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, whichever period expires later. 9. In the present case, the first show cause notice for initiation of proceedings was issued by the AO on 25.03.2003 and was served on the assessee on 27.03.2003. Obviously, the later period also expired on 30.09.2003 when six mont .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version