Court Overturns Penalty on Firm for Late Issue of Income Tax Order; Clarifies Start Date for Penalty Proceedings.

The court set aside the impugned penalty order issued under the Income Tax Act against the petitioner, a partnership firm, for contravention of Section 269ST, due to it being barred by limitation. The key issue was the interpretation of the initiation date for penalty proceedings under Section 275(1)(c). The court determined that the initiation date was the date of receipt of the reference, 24.03.2023, rather than the respondent's proposed date of 04.09.2024. The court concluded that the penalty order was not issued within the statutory time frame, leading to its invalidation.

---

---

Issues:
1. Impugning notices and order under Income Tax Act
2. Barred by limitation - Penalty order
3. Date of initiation of penalty proceedings
4. Interpretation of Section 275(1)(c) of the Act

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged notices and an order issued under the Income Tax Act, pertaining to a penalty imposed for contravention of Section 269ST of the Act for the assessment year 2021-22. The petitioner contended that the penalty order was barred by limitation. The petitioner, a partnership firm, was engaged in real estate brokerage and was searched along with related entities. The assessment proceedings revealed potential liability for penalty under Section 269ST, leading to a reference for penalty initiation under Section 271DA of the Act.

The key issue revolved around the date of initiation of penalty proceedings. The respondent argued that the date of reference should be considered as 04.09.2024, based on the submission of additional documents by the AO. However, the court relied on precedents to establish that the date of receipt of the reference, which was 24.03.2023, should be deemed as the initiation date. The court emphasized that the reference contained the necessary particulars for initiating penalty proceedings, rejecting the respondent's argument regarding the later date.

Interpretation of Section 275(1)(c) of the Act played a crucial role in determining the validity of the penalty order. The court highlighted that the penalty order must be passed within the prescribed time limit from the date of initiation of proceedings. Despite the respondent's contention that the later date should be considered, the court found that the delay in seeking additional documents and the lapse of almost a year indicated non-compliance with the statutory time frame. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned order due to being beyond the limitation period specified under the Act.

---