Tribunal upholds appeal, ruling penalty time-barred & deleted by CITA. Penalty period starts from show cause notice.

The tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, affirming that the penalty imposed under section 271E was barred by limitation and rightly deleted by the CITA. The tribunal upheld the CITA's decision, citing the jurisdictional High Court's ruling that the limitation period for penalties starts from the first show cause notice date, not the initiation date. The genuineness of loan transactions was not addressed as the time-barred penalty notices resolved the appeal. The court order was pronounced on 23.05.2018.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing of the appeal by the revenue.
2. Justification of deleting the penalty levied under section 271E of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Validity of initiation and imposition of penalty proceedings under section 271E.
4. Time-barred nature of penalty notices under section 271E.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Filing of the Appeal:
The revenue filed the appeal with a delay of 3 days, supported by a condonation petition. The tribunal condoned the delay after reviewing the reasons provided, thereby admitting the appeal for adjudication.

2. Justification of Deleting the Penalty Levied under Section 271E:
The primary issue was whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CITA] was justified in deleting the penalty levied under section 271E of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The penalty was initially levied by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (JCIT) for the alleged violation of section 269T concerning the repayment of loans in cash by the assessee firm to its partner.

3. Validity of Initiation and Imposition of Penalty Proceedings under Section 271E:
The assessee firm had repaid loans amounting to Rs. 11,39,932/- to its partner, out of which Rs. 5,10,000/- was repaid by account payee cheques, leaving Rs. 6,29,932/- in cash repayments. The reassessment was completed on 16.5.2011, and penalty proceedings were initially initiated under section 271D, later rectified to section 271E by the JCIT. The assessee contested the initiation of proceedings under section 148 and the subsequent penalty proceedings as being bad in law and barred by limitation.

4. Time-Barred Nature of Penalty Notices under Section 271E:
The CITA deleted the penalty on the grounds that the penalty notices were time-barred. The reassessment was completed on 16.5.2011, and the first show cause notice under section 271D was issued on 5.12.2012, followed by a notice under section 271E on 16.1.2013. According to section 275(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty should have been imposed by 31.3.2012. Both notices were issued beyond this period, rendering them time-barred.

The tribunal upheld the CITA’s decision, referencing the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in CIT vs Narayani and Sons (P) Ltd, which established that the limitation period for imposing penalties should be reckoned from the date of the first show cause notice, not from the date of the JCIT’s initiation.

Conclusion:
The tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, affirming that the penalty imposed under section 271E was barred by limitation and thus, rightly deleted by the CITA. The tribunal did not need to address the genuineness of the loan transactions further, as the time-barred nature of the penalty notices was sufficient to resolve the appeal. The order was pronounced in the court on 23.05.2018.

---