Court Annuls Penalty Order for Real Estate Brokerage Due to Delay in Proceedings Under Income Tax Law.

The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, a partnership firm in real estate brokerage, by setting aside the impugned penalty order under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court determined that the penalty proceedings were time-barred under Section 275(1)(c) due to the delay by respondent no. 3 in initiating action after receiving the reference. The court emphasized that the penalty order should have been passed within six months from the date of receipt of the reference, rejecting the Revenue's argument for a later initiation date. Consequently, the penalty order was annulled, and any pending applications were disposed of.

---

---

Issues:
Impugning notices under Income Tax Act, 1961; Penalty imposition under Section 271DA; Barred by limitation; Date of initiation of penalty proceedings; Interpretation of Section 275(1)(c) of the Act.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged notices and a penalty order under the Income Tax Act, 1961, citing violation of Section 269ST. The petitioner contended that the penalty order was time-barred. The petitioner, a partnership firm in real estate brokerage, faced penalty proceedings due to alleged violations. A search under Section 132 of the Act on related entities triggered scrutiny of the petitioner's returns for the AY 2020-21. The Assessing Officer (AO) referred the case for penalty proceedings under Section 271DA after finding potential violations of Section 269ST. Respondent no. 3 delayed action on the reference, requesting evidence over a year later.

The main issue revolved around the interpretation of the limitation period under Section 275(1)(c) of the Act for imposing penalties. The court referred to precedents like Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. JKD Capital & Finlease Ltd and Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)-2 Delhi v. Turner General Entertainment Networks India Pvt. Ltd. The court held that the date of receipt of the reference initiated the penalty proceedings, requiring the penalty order within six months from that date. The court rejected the Revenue's argument to consider a later date as the initiation, emphasizing the delay by respondent no. 3.

The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the impugned order due to the delay in passing it beyond the prescribed limitation period. The court criticized respondent no. 3 for the prolonged inaction and delay in concluding the penalty proceedings, ultimately allowing the petition and disposing of any pending applications.

---