2014 (4) TMI 627

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d by the assessee is directed against the order dated 9.12.2011 passed by the ld CIT(A)-30 Mumbai and it relates to the AY 2001-02. The assessee is questioning the validity of the penalty order passed u/s 271B of the Act. 2 The ld counsel for the assessee submitted that the penalty order passed by the AO u/s 271B of the Act is barred by limitation. He submitted that the AO issued notices two time....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....econd notice i.e. 9.2.2004, the penalty order should have been passed on or before 31.8.2004. Since penalty order has been passed by the AO only in 2006, the ld AR submitted that it is barred by limitation. 3. On the contrary, the ld DR placed strong reliance on the order passed by the ld CIT(A). 4. We have heard the rival contention and carefully perused the records. In the instant case, the fi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....antum proceedings was passed on 8.3.2005, the penalty proceedings get revived after the receipt of appellate order of Ld CIT(A) in quantum proceedings. Accordingly, he has upheld the penalty order passed by the AO. 5. The limitation for imposing penalty is prescribed u/s 275 of the Act. Clause (a) and Clause (c) of sec. 275(1) of the Act which reads as under: 275(1) No order imposing a penalty un....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....been initiated, are completed, or six months from the end of the month in which action for imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever period expires later. In our considered view, the penalty proceeding u/s 271B is not arising out of assessment proceedings and it can be initiated independent of assessment proceedings. Hence, in our view, the applicable provision is only clause (c) of sec. 275(....