TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 1137
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eferred to as the Act). 3. During the Course of hearing the ld. Counsel for the assessee raised the issue of limitation under "Rule 27" of Income Tax (AT) Rules, 1963. As the Ld. CIT(A) had considered this ground of the assessee and decided the issue against the assessee, we hold that the assessee is entitled to raise this ground on the issue of limitation under Rule 27 of Income Tax (AT)000 Rules. 4. In the present case, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) in paras 4.3 to 4.5 of the impugned orders held as under: "4.3 Section 275 imposes certain limitation on passing of penalty orders. The relevant dates in the case are as under:- Date of search 30.06.2009 Date of order u/s I53A 30.12.2011 Date of reference by AO to Addl.CIT 30.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for the assessee at the very outset stated that this issue is covered by the order dated 08.03.2016 of the ITAT Delhi Bench 'F', New Delhi in the case of DCIT, Central Circle-03, New Delhi Vs M/s Raj Katha Products P. Ltd. in ITA Nos.5853, 5854, 5855, 5857, 5858, 5859/Del/2013 for the assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-10 (copy of the said order was furnished which is placed on record). It was stated that the assessee also belonges to the same group to which the said assessee M/s Raj Katha Products P. Ltd. belongs. 6. In his rival submissions the ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below and further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) rightly decided the issue of limitation against the assessee. 7. After considering the submissi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate, the penalty order could not have been passed later than 31st March 2008. The second possible date is expiry of six months from the month in which the penalty proceedings were initiated. With the AO having initiated the penalty proceedings in December 2007, the last date by which the penalty order could have been passed is 30th June 2008. The later of the two dates is 30th June 2008." 3.2. Further at para 11 it was held as follows. "11. In fact, when the AO recommended the initiation of penalty proceedings the AO appeared to be conscious of the fact that he did not have the power to issue notice as far as the penalty proceedings under Section 271-E was concerned. He, therefore, referred the matter concerning penalty proceedings un....