Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : B. Anand Babu Vs DCIT (ITAT Chennai)
Related Assessment Year : 2016-17
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.

B. Anand Babu Vs DCIT (ITAT Chennai)

Penalty u/s 271D Quashed as Time-Barred under Section 275(1)(c)

The Hon’ble ITAT, Chennai held that the impugned penalty orders passed u/s 271D for AYs 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2019-20 were vitiated and barred by limitation under Section 275(1)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal noted that no assessment proceedings were framed, and therefore the first limb of Section 275(1)(c) was not applicable. In the absence of assessment, the date of initiation of penalty proceedings was held to be 21.04.2022, being the date on which the AO ma

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Author Bio

Experienced professional with over 3 years of Post qualification experience in handling Assessments, dealing CIT(A) and ITAT Appeals. View Full Profile

My Published Posts

ITAT Hyderabad Dropped Penalties When Compliance Made Before Assessment Ends ₹3.49 Cr Cash Seizure Backed by Cash Book & Debtor Realisations: ITAT Deletes Sec 69A Addition Addition under Section 69 Cannot Be Based on Unsigned, Unacted Agreement Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) Not Leviable Where Survey Disclosure Is Declared in Return & Accepted Recorded Sales During Demonetisation Cannot Be Taxed as Unexplained Money: ITAT Hyderabad View More Published Posts

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Ads Free tax News and Updates
Search Post by Date
January 2026
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031