TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order is upheld. Accordingly, the penalty U/s 271C is quashed. Decided in favour of assessee. - Dr. M. L. Meena, Accountant Member And Sh. Anikesh Banerjee, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Ms. Nidhi Nair, JCIT DR For the Respondent : Sh. Sh. R.R. Singhvi, Adv. ORDER PER : ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM: The instant appeal of the Revenue was filed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Jodhpur, [in brevity the CIT (A) ], order passed u/s 250 (6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act ] for A.Y. 2012-13. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. Additional Commissioner of Income (TDS), Jodhpur,[in brevity the AO ] order passed u/s 271C of the Act. 2. The Reve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty was initiated by the ld. AO on dated 01.08.2018. The ld. DR was not accepted the notice issued by the ld. ACIT-1 Jodhpur on dated 08.01.2015. The ld. DR further argued that the ld. Additional Commissioner has power to levy of penalty u/s 271C. So, the previous notice should be ignored. 5. The ld. AR vehemently argued and submitted the written submission which are kept in the record. The ld. AR invited our attention in APB page 3 that the notice was issued by the ACIT, Circle-1 Jodhpur on dated 08.01.2015 related Sections 274/271C for the impugned assessment year. The long time revenue was totally inaction and not levied the penalty. The ld. AR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A). The relevant paragraph no. 4.3 to 6 are reprodu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imposing penalty shall be passed before the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed, or within one year from the end of the financial year in which the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, whichever is later, (b) in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject-matter of revision under section 263 or section 264, after the expiry of six months from the end of the month in which such order of revision is passed; (c) in any other case, after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etter to the ACIT recommending the issuance of the SCN. While it is true that the ACIT had the discretion whether or not to issue the SCN, if he did decide to issue a SCN, the limitation would begin to run from the date of letter of the AO recommending initiation' of the penalty proceedings. From the above, it is clear that the penalty could not have been imposed on 28.08,2018 in this case thus, the appellant succeeds on this issue of ground of appeal. 5. Since the appellant has succeeded on technical ground; second issue becomes infructuous: accordingly same is treated to have been dismissed hereby. 6. We heard the rival submission and consider the documents available in the record. The notice u/s 274/271C was duly issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
