TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 280X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of the assessee. Accordingly, such time has to be excluded as per the explanation attached to section 275 of the Act which has been discussed here in above. The time limit for passing the order was expiring on 30 September 2003 under the provisions of clause (c) to section 275 of the Act but the same needs to be extended for another 162 days as per the explanation provided in section 275 of the Act. Thus, after considering such time, the time limit expired for passing the order as on 11-05-2004 but the AO has passed the penalty order dated 18-05-2004 which is delayed by 7 days. Accordingly we are of the view that the order passed by the AO under section 271E imposing the penalty upon the assessee is not sustainable as it is barred b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Ld.JCIT in holding that M/s.Yogi Finance is a benami of the appellant. 5. The Ld.CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in holding that the repayments made by the appellant to the lenders by cheques discounted by them from sister concern M/s.Yogi Finance was in violation of the provisions of section 269T. 6. The Ld.CIT(Appeal) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the penalty under section 271E to the extent of ₹ 107,81,776/- 7. The Ld.CIT(Appeal) has further erred in law and in facts in enhancing the penalty under section 271E by an amount of ₹ 13,13,960/- 8. Your appellant craves liberty to add, delete, withdraw, substitute, revise or modify any of the grounds of appeal taken hereinabove. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der passed by the AO under section 271E of the Act vide order dated 18-05-2014. 6. On the other hand the learned DR before us requested for some time on the reasoning to get comments from the AO on the submission made by the ld. AR for the assessee, precisely for 15 days. 6.1 The ld. AR objected for grant of time to the Revenue on the ground that the Revenue has time and again has sought time on the pretext of getting the report from the AO but failed to obtain such report from the AO. The matter being very old, the request of Revenue for adjourning the matter should not be entertained. 7. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The provisions as specified under clause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... viso to section 129 of the Act vide letter dated 27-11-2003 which came to be concluded on 06-05-2004. Effectively, the time of 162 days was consumed in the rehearing of the case of the assessee. Accordingly, such time has to be excluded as per the explanation attached to section 275 of the Act which has been discussed here in above. 7.3 In the light of the above stated discussion the time limit for passing the order was expiring on 30 September 2003 under the provisions of clause (c) to section 275 of the Act but the same needs to be extended for another 162 days as per the explanation provided in section 275 of the Act. Thus, after considering such time, the time limit expired for passing the order as on 11-05-2004 but the AO has passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .05.2004 c) Date of Penalty Order : 18.05.2004 d) The date of initiation by A.O. would certainly be before the date of issue of notice for initiation of penalty proceedings i.e. 22.05.2003. If the earlier date is taken the limitation period would expire even earlier. 3. The ld.DR was unable to controvert the above calculation in the absence of exact details available with him. He submitted that he has tried his best to lay his hand on the details from the record so that the submissions of the assessee could be crossverified; but because of Covid 19 pandemic and other issues, such details could not be collected, and sought time. 4. We have considered the request of the ld.DR and deem it appropriate to observe that ea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
