TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 944X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edings u/s 271B and the fact of higher gross receipt was very much available to the Assessing Officer which has been mentioned in the body of the original assessment order, therefore, the penalty proceeding initiated by the AO in our opinion is barred by limitation. The decision relied on by the DR will not help the Revenue since the same relates to initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271B in the course of assessment proceedings. The decision does not speak of levy of penalty after inordinate delay. The penalty proceedings initiated after a long gap of more than 4 years from the date of original assessment order is not sustainable in law being barred by limitation. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.886/Del/2018 - - - Dated: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceipts from booking (net) at ₹ 20,58,378/- whereas the gross freight of ₹ 2,08,31,714/- which was admitted by the assessee to have been received. Against the above receipts, the assessee has claimed to have paid an amount of ₹ 1,87,73,336/- and the net receipt was shown at ₹ 20,58,378/-. The Assessing Officer, therefore, issued a show cause notice asking the assessee to explain as to why penalty u/s 271B should not be levied. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee and observing that the assessee has admitted to have received gross freight of ₹ 2,08,31,714/-, the Assessing Officer, invoking the provisions of section 44AB of the Act and the provisions of section 271A of the Act, levied a penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal before the Tribunal. 7. The ld. counsel for the assessee, referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hissaria Bros reported in 291 ITR 0244 and submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that penalty proceedings for default under ss.269SS and 269T not being related to the assessment proceedings, completion of appellate proceedings arising out of the assessment proceedings or other proceedings have no relevance and the limitation under s. 275(1)(c) applies to such proceedings and, therefore, impugned penalty orders under s. 271D passed beyond 6 months from the end of the month in which the assessments were completed were barred by time. He submitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have got its accounts audited. Since the assessee has failed to comply with the provisions of section 44AB and there was no reasonable cause for not getting its accounts audited, therefore, the CIT(A) was fully justified in upholding the penalty so levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271B of the Act. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Rama Medical Store vs. CIT 2016-TIOL-2750, he submitted that for the purpose of imposing penalty u/s 271B, its initiation in the course of the assessment proceedings is not necessary within the meaning of section 275(1)(c). 10. I have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the orders of the authorities below. I ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iated long after the completion of the assessment and the assessment order was silent about the levy of penalty u/s 271B of the Act. Since the Assessing Officer in the instant case has initiated the penalty proceedings after a period of more than 4 years from the date of original assessment order and there was no such mention of the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271B of the Act and the fact of higher gross receipt was very much available to the Assessing Officer which has been mentioned in the body of the original assessment order, therefore, the penalty proceeding initiated by the Assessing Officer in the instant case in my opinion is barred by limitation. The decision relied on by the ld. DR will not help the Revenue since the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
