Penalties under sections 271D and 271E cancelled as time-barred; Tribunal remands for re-adjudication.

The penalties imposed under sections 271D and 271E were cancelled by the CIT(A) due to being time-barred. The Appellate Tribunal found that the penalty proceedings were initiated on 13-1-1995, within the prescribed time limit, and not on 30-12-1994 as argued. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s decision, remanding the matters for re-adjudication on merits and directing both parties to be given a reasonable opportunity. All three appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Cancellation of penalties imposed u/s 271D and 271E.
2. Validity of the order passed u/s 154 of the I.T. Act.

Summary:

Issue 1: Cancellation of Penalties Imposed u/s 271D and 271E

The CIT(A) cancelled the penalties of Rs. 18,850 and Rs. 47,900 imposed by the Assessing Officer under sections 271D and 271E, respectively, on the grounds that the orders were barred by limitation. The penalties were imposed for accepting and repaying cash deposits/loans in violation of sections 269SS and 269T. The CIT(A) held that the penalty proceedings were initiated on 30-12-1994, and thus, the orders for imposing penalties should have been passed by 30-6-1995. Since the orders were passed on 25-7-1995, they were deemed time-barred.

Issue 2: Validity of the Order Passed u/s 154

The CIT(A) did not find it necessary to adjudicate the appeal relating to the order u/s 154, as the penalties had already been cancelled.

Appellate Tribunal's Findings:

The Tribunal examined whether the initiation of penalty proceedings should be reckoned from 30-12-1994 (when the Assessing Officer issued directions) or 13-1-1995 (when the DCIT issued show-cause notices). It was concluded that the authority competent to impose penalties is the Joint Commissioner (then Deputy Commissioner), and the date of initiation should be 13-1-1995. Therefore, the orders passed on 25-7-1995 were within the time limit prescribed u/s 275(1)(c).

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and restored the issues for re-adjudication on merits, directing the CIT(A) to allow reasonable opportunity to both parties.

Conclusion:

All three appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, and the matters were remanded back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication on merits.

---