ITO Vs Shri Prashant Sharma (ITAT Jaipur)
Conclusion: Order of penalty passed under sections 271D and 271E was to set aside as the same was passed after expiry of six months from the action initiated for imposition of penalty and barred by limitation as per section 275(1)(c).
Held: In the instant case, two show cause notices issued u/s 274 for initiation of penalty u/s 271D and 271E. First show cause notice was issued by the ITO on 30.12.2011 at the time of completion of the assessment and the second show cause notice was issued thereafter by the additional/Joint Commissioner on 10.09.2012. Assessee had raised the question of validity of the orders passed u/s 271D and 271E being barred by limitation as these orders dated 25.03.2013 as per the assessees were beyond the period of 6 months from the date of the first show cause notice dated 30.11.2011 the limitation as provided u/s 275(1)(c). In the case of CIT v. Banshi Lal Rathi vide order dated 17-5-2013 ITA No. 119 of 2011,it was held even when the authority competent to impose penalty under Section 271D was the Joint Commissioner, the period of limitation for the purpose of penalty proceedings was to be reckoned from the date of issue of first show cause for initiation of such penalty proceedings. Following the above decision, penalty order was set aside.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT
These two appeals by the Revenue against two separate orders by the CIT(A) both dated 16.08.2016 arising from the penalty orders passed u/s 271D and 271E for the A.Y. 2009-10. The Revenue has raised the following grounds as under:-
In ITA No. 960/JP/2016
“1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting the penalty o f Rs. 1,48,22,585/- imposed u/s 271D as the loan/deposits were accepted/received in cash by the assessee?
