9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hpur,[in brevity 'the AO'] order passed u/s 271C of the Act. 2. The Revenue has taken the following ground: "1. Whether Id. CIT(A) was justified in not considering the facts that the authority competent to impose penalty u/s 271C of the I.T. Act 1961 is Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax having jurisdiction and the fact that the order for penalty was passed within the limitation prescribed under the provision of section 275(1)(c) of the I.T. Act 1961. 2. Whether Id. CIT(A) was justified in not considering the fact that the limitation under the provision of section section 275(1)(c) of the I.T. Act 1961 is reckoned from the date of issue of show cause by the authority competent imposing the penalty under the law. 3. The appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. CIT(A). The relevant paragraph no. 4.3 to 6 are reproduced as below: "4.3. I have considered the penalty order, remand report of the JCIT(TDS), Jodhpur and submissions of the appellant. There are two issues to be adjudicated upon; firstly, whether the penalty is time barred and secondly. whether the AO was right in imposing the penalty of Rs. 6,000/-. To appreciate issue in better perspective, it is imperative to recapitulate the S.275 which is reads as under:- Bar of limitation for imposing penalties. 275. (1) No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be passed- (a) in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject-matter of an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 246 or section 246A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nancial 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. In the light of above noted section, it is noted that the AO while passing the order u/s 143(3) dt. 8.1.2015 has stated that the penalty under section 271C initiated separately for non-deduction of TDS'. Whereas, the penalty order is dated 28.8.2018. Appellant has contended that the penalty was time barred. Basic question to be decided is, as to when the penalty was 'initiated 'whether at the time when the assessment order was passed by the AO or then the notice for levy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
