Tribunal upholds CIT(A)'s decision on penalty orders for A.Y. 2009-10, emphasizing limitation period start.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to set aside penalty orders u/s 271D and 271E for A.Y. 2009-10, emphasizing that the limitation period starts from the date of the show cause notice by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, citing precedent cases and supporting the calculation of the limitation period from the first notice issued by the AO.

---

---

Issues:
- Appeal against penalty orders u/s 271D and 271E for A.Y. 2009-10
- Validity of penalty orders being barred by limitation
- Dispute over reckoning the limitation period from the date of notice by ITO or JCIT

Analysis:
1. The Revenue filed appeals against penalty orders u/s 271D and 271E for A.Y. 2009-10. The AO found that the assessee received and paid cash amounts in contravention of sections 269SS and 269T of the Act, initiating penalties. The CIT(A) set aside the penalties, citing them as beyond the 6-month limitation period as per section 275 of the Act from the first show cause notice issued by the AO.

2. The main issue revolved around the computation of the limitation period for penalty orders. The Revenue argued that the limitation should be reckoned from the notice issued by the JCIT, who is competent to levy penalties. Conversely, the assessee contended that the orders were beyond the limitation period based on the first show cause notice by the ITO. The Tribunal noted conflicting views from different High Courts but held the jurisdiction High Court's decision binding, emphasizing that the limitation starts from the date of the notice by the AO.

3. Citing the decision in CIT vs. Jitendra Singh Rathore, the Tribunal clarified that the period of limitation for penalty proceedings under sections 271D and 271E should be calculated from the date of the first show cause notice issued by the AO, even if the competent authority to impose penalties is the JCIT. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, as it followed the jurisdiction High Court's ruling, dismissing the Revenue's appeals against the penalty orders.

4. The Tribunal highlighted that the jurisdiction High Court's stance, as reiterated in subsequent cases like CIT Vs. Banshi Lal Rathi, supports reckoning the limitation period from the date of the show cause notice by the AO. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty orders were rightly set aside by the CIT(A) due to being beyond the statutory limitation period, and subsequently dismissed the Revenue's appeals.

5. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the importance of calculating the limitation period for penalty proceedings under sections 271D and 271E from the date of the show cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer, even if the penalty is to be imposed by the Joint Commissioner. The appeals by the Revenue against the penalty orders were dismissed.

---