TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1919X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of which one appeal is regarding penalty imposed by the AO u/s. 271D for Assessment Year 2005-06 and the remaining two appeals are in respect of penalty imposed by the AO u/s. 271E for Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2007-08 and one appeal in the case of Smt. Rajeshwari Pandith for Assessment Year 2007-08 in respect of penalty imposed by the AO u/s. 271D was decided by CIT(A) as per his order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S. Pandith for Assessment Years 2004-05 to 2009-10 in respect of penalty imposed by the AO u/s. 271D of the IT Act and by the same assessee for Assessment Years 2006-07 to 2009-10 in respect of penalty imposed by the AO u/s. 271E of the IT Act and one remaining appeal is filed by a different but connected assessee Smt. Rajeshwari Pandith for Assessment Year2007-08 in respect of penalty imposed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of authorities below. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that as per his order dated 11.03.2015, the ld. CIT(A) has decided five appeals in respect of Assessment Years 2004-05 and 2006-07 to 2009-10 in respect of penalty imposed by the AO u/s. 271D of the IT Act and two appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2009-10 in respect of penalty imposed by the AO u/s. 271E of IT Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven appeals, the time barring aspect was raised by the assessee as per ground no. 1 of the appeals in all these appeals which is not decided by CIT(A). Under these facts, we feel it proper to restore the entire matter back to the file of CIT (A) for fresh decision. The ld. CIT (A) should decide this technical aspect as to whether the penalty orders passed by the AO is time barred or not and after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
