9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1658X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... represented on behalf the of the Revenue. 3. It was submitted by ld. A.R that the assessee is an individual, who is doing real estate business. Consequent to Search and Seizure Operation on the assessee 03.09.2013, the assessment came to be passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.153A of the Act on 31.03.2016 wherein the returned income of the assessee had been accepted. It was a submission that assessment year involved is 2012-13 and the return filed on 20.11.2015in response to the notice u/s.153A was the first return filed. The assessment came to be completed on 31.03.2016 and penalty proceedings initiated u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act was also initiated simultaneously. It was a submission that the assessee had responded to the penalty proceedings and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssion that the dropping of the penalty proceedings was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The ld.D.R placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Toyota Motor Corporation reported in 306 ITR 52 SC wherein in respect of failure to deduct tax at source, the ld. Assessing Officer had initiated penalty proceedings, but had dropped them without giving detailed reasons, then the Commissioner of Income Tax had invoked the power of revision and had directed the ld. Assessing Officer to pass reasoned order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had upheld the Order u/s.263 and directed that the order was valid in so far as it was the duty of the ld. Assessing Officer to take all facts into account and pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the present case on 31.09.2016, being 6 months from the end of the month in which the penalty proceedings has been initiated. Now, after the expiry of said limitation, the ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has issued the show cause notice on 09.03.2018 for reviving the penalty proceedings, which was already expired and barred by limitation. True, the order passed by the ld. Assessing Officer dropping the penalty proceedings is an unspeaking order, but still, that would not make it valid reason for extending the limitation provided u/s.275 of the Act for the purpose of levying the penalty or for considering the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act by invoking the powers of revision u/s.263 of the Act. In the circumstances, the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
