2025 (1) TMI 1237 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty for violation of cash transaction prohibition found time barred after delayed show cause notice; relief granted to assessee

Penalty under income tax law for alleged cash transaction violation was held time barred because the revenue initiated proceedings nearly a year after the ... Validity of penalty order passed u/s 271D as barred limitation - violation of Sec. 269SS - HELD THAT:- ITO vide letter dated 16.11.2016 had admittedly made the reference. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax issued the Show Cause Notice only on 10.11.2017 (nearly a year later) proposing the levy of penalty u/s 271D. Penalty Order was made on 22.02.2018. If the reckoning point is 16.11.2016, it is clear that the proceedings were completed beyond the period of limitation, as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the Assessee. Even otherwise, the concept of delay & latches would crop in; no explanation whatsoever has been offered by the Revenue for the laxity shown in belatedly issuing the show cause notice / proposition notice which they claim, amounted to initiation of penalty proceedings. This view has animated the reasoning of the impugned order of the Tribunal, may be a bit inarticulately . Reliance of Revenue on TAM TAM PEDDA GURUVA REDDY [2006 (7) TMI 141 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] does not come to his aid since the same has been rendered largely fact-specific. Thus the questions of law framed to be answered in favour of assessee. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe judgment in question addresses the following core legal issues:Whether the order levying penalty under Section 271-D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid due to the initiation of penalty proceedings being barred by delay and laches.When are the penalty proceedings under Section 271-D of the Act considered to have been initiatedRs.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Validity of Penalty Order Due to Delay and LachesRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents:The relevant legal provisions include Section 271-D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which deals with penalties for certain financial transactions, and Section 275(1)(c), which prescribes the limitation period for completing penalty proceedings. The court also referenced precedents from the Delhi High Court, including Turner General Entertainment Networks India Pvt. Ltd. and Clix Capital Services Pvt. Ltd., which discuss the initiation and completion of penalty proceedings.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning:The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the limitation periods prescribed by law. It interpreted that the initiation of penalty proceedings should be marked by the first step taken towards imposing a penalty, such as a reference by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) to the Additional Commissioner, rather than the issuance of a show cause notice.Key Evidence and Findings:The court noted that the ITO made a reference to the Additional Commissioner on 16.11.2016, but the show cause notice was issued only on 10.11.2017, leading to a delay in the proceedings.Application of Law to Facts:The court applied the law by treating the ITO's reference as the initiation point of the penalty proceedings. Given that the penalty order was passed on 22.02.2018, the court found that the proceedings were completed beyond the permissible limitation period.Treatment of Competing Arguments:The Revenue argued that the limitation period only applies to the completion of proceedings and not their initiation. The court rejected this view, emphasizing that allowing unfettered discretion in initiating proceedings would defeat the purpose of limitation statutes.Conclusions:The court concluded that the penalty proceedings were time-barred and thus invalid due to the delay in initiating the proceedings.Issue 2: When Are Penalty Proceedings Considered InitiatedRs.Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents:The court examined the statutory language of Section 275(1)(c) and relevant case law to determine the initiation point of penalty proceedings.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning:The court interpreted that the initiation of penalty proceedings occurs when the first action, such as a reference by the ITO, is made towards imposing a penalty. This interpretation aligns with the purpose of limitation laws, which aim to prevent indefinite threats of litigation.Key Evidence and Findings:The court found that the reference made by the ITO on 16.11.2016 was the initiation point, not the subsequent issuance of the show cause notice.Application of Law to Facts:The court applied this interpretation to the facts, determining that the penalty proceedings were initiated with the ITO's reference, making the subsequent delay in issuing the show cause notice unjustifiable.Treatment of Competing Arguments:The Revenue's argument that the show cause notice marks the initiation was dismissed, as it would allow for arbitrary delays contrary to the legislative intent.Conclusions:The court concluded that the initiation of penalty proceedings should be marked by the earliest action taken towards imposing a penalty, supporting the view that the proceedings were time-barred.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning:'The expression 'action for imposition of penalty is initiated' must, thus, clearly refer to the date on which the first introductory step for such action is taken, it must necessarily mean the start of such action.'Core Principles Established:Limitation periods for penalty proceedings are essential to prevent arbitrary and delayed actions by authorities.The initiation of penalty proceedings is marked by the first action taken towards imposing a penalty, such as an ITO's reference.Unfettered discretion in initiating proceedings is contrary to the principles of justice and legislative intent.Final Determinations on Each Issue:The penalty order under Section 271-D was invalid due to being time-barred.The initiation of penalty proceedings occurred with the ITO's reference, not the issuance of the show cause notice.The judgment ultimately dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and ruling in favor of the respondent assessee.