TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 22
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... u/s 154 of the IT Act. In the said order, the Assessing Officer has partially accepted the assessee's contention but still rejected some of the assessee's contentions. He pointed out that the assessee is in appeal against the order u/s 154 dated 30th April, 2015. In view of the above, it is suggested by the learned counsel that the order of learned CIT(A) for all the three years where he has upheld the order of the Assessing Officer rejecting assessee's application u/s 154 should be set aside and to restore the matter to the file of the CIT(A) to be adjudicated along with the appeal filed against the order of the Assessing Officer dated 30th April, 2015 passed u/s 154. 4. Learned DR, on the other hand, stated that the impugned appeal of the assessee has become infructuous and should be dismissed because once the order u/s 154 has been passed partially accepting the assessee's contention and the assessee has already filed the appeal against the said order u/s 154, therefore, the only adjudication required by the learned CIT(A) is in the appeal of the assessee filed against the order u/s 154 dated 30th April, 2015. The earlier appeal does not survive for adjudication. 5. In the re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CIT(A) in the order dated 8th December, 2014 wherein he has upheld the order u/s 154 dated 30th March, 2013 may cause prejudice to the case of the assessee while disposing of its appeal against the order u/s 154 dated 30th April, 2015. Therefore, we hold that learned CIT(A) while deciding the appeal against the order u/s 154 dated 30th April, 2015 would not be influenced by any observation or finding given in his order dated 8th December, 2014 but he will decide the appeal afresh uninfluenced by any observation/finding in his order dated 8th December, 2014. With this remark, we dismiss the appeals filed by the assessee vide ITA Nos. 827/Del/2015, 828/Del/2015 & 829/Del/2015. ITA Nos.1897/Del/2012, 1978/Del/2012 & 1979/Del/2012 :- 7. All these appeals by the assessee are against the levy of penalty imposed u/s 271C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as under:- Assessment Year Penalty levied 2006-07 Rs. 6,63,102/- 2007-08 Rs. 3,16,58,404/- 2008-09 Rs. 12,33,848/- 8. At the time of hearing before us, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the Assessing Officer has modified the amount of penalty in view of the order u/s 154 as under:- Assessment Year Amount of Penalty 2006-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch the order of the [***] Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Appellate Tribunal is received by the [Principal Chief Commissioner or] Chief Commissioner or [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner, whichever period expires later : [Provided that in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject-matter of an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 246 or section 246A, and the Commissioner (Appeals) passes the order on or after the 1st day of June, 2003 disposing of such appeal, an order imposing penalty shall be passed before the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed, or within one year from the end of the financial year in which the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is received by the [Principal Chief Commissioner or] Chief Commissioner or [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner, whichever is later;] (b) in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject-matter of revision under section 263 [or section 264], after the expiry of six months from the end of the month in which such order of revision is passe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e penalty proceedings under section 271E because when there is any acceptance or repayment of loan in violation of section 269SS or 269T, it is the Assessing Officer who has to prima facie satisfy himself whether there is a violation of section 269SS or 269T and if so, initiate penalty proceedings under section 271D or 271E and thereafter refer the matter to the Joint Commissioner who would finally decide and if satisfied, levy the penalty under section 271D or 271E. Hence the period of limitation was to be counted from the date of the initiation of the penalty proceedings by the Assessing Officer, that is, December 5, 2011. The penalty proceedings were initiated in the course of assessment proceedings in the financial year 2011-12, and such financial year expired on March 31, 2012. Six months from the initiation of penalty proceedings also expired on June 30, 2012. The penalty order passed on September 14, 2012 was certainly after the period of limitation prescribed under section 275(1)(c)." 15. In the case of JKD Capital & Finlease Ltd. (supra), Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court held as under:- "11. In fact, when the AO recommended the initiation of penalty proceedings th....