TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Penalty Order Quashed Due to Limitation Bar, Assessee Appeal Allowed</h1> <h3>Sh. Swapnil Agarwal Versus ITO (TDS), Ajmer</h3> Sh. Swapnil Agarwal Versus ITO (TDS), Ajmer - TMI Issues Involved:1. Legality of penalty proceedings initiated after seven years of the transaction.2. Confirmation of penalty levy of Rs. 57,940/- under Section 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Summary:Issue 1: Legality of Penalty Proceedings Initiated After Seven YearsThe assessee contended that the penalty proceedings initiated after six years of the transaction were illegal and bad in law. The assessee referenced the Supreme Court case of State of Punjab Vs. Bhatinda District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Limited, which held that statutory authority must exercise its jurisdiction within a reasonable period, typically not exceeding five years. The Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation also supported a four-year limitation period for initiating action where no specific limitation is prescribed. The ITAT, Chennai Bench in RMG Benefit Fund Ltd. Vs. ACIT held that penalty proceedings should be initiated within a reasonable time, and a delay of six years was unreasonable. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, stating that the penalty order passed on 16.12.2020 was barred by limitation since the show cause notice was issued on 21.01.2020, and the six-month period ended on 31.07.2020.Issue 2: Confirmation of Penalty Levy of Rs. 57,940/- under Section 271CThe assessee argued that the failure to deduct TDS was due to ignorance of the newly introduced Section 194-IA, which came into effect just two months before the transaction. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty, stating that the words in Section 271C are 'shall be liable to pay,' indicating no discretion for not levying penalty unless reasonable cause under Section 273B is proven. The CIT(A) rejected the assessee's argument, stating that ignorance of law is no excuse. The Tribunal, however, found that the penalty proceedings were initiated beyond the reasonable period, rendering the penalty order invalid. Thus, the penalty of Rs. 57,940/- was quashed.Conclusion:The Tribunal quashed the penalty order under Section 271C as it was barred by limitation, thereby allowing the appeal of the assessee. The judgment emphasized the importance of initiating penalty proceedings within a reasonable period, aligning with precedents set by higher courts.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
