2017 (5) TMI 433

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Assessment Year ('AY') 2009-10. 2. The short question urged by the Revenue is whether the ITAT erred in law by holding that the order imposing the penalty was not passed within the time limit laid down under Section 275(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Pursuant to a search operation, a notice under Section 153A of the Act was issued to the Assessee, leading to the passing of an Assessment Order by the Assessing Officer ('AO') on 30th December, 2011 for the AY in question. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the Assessee, before issuance of notice under Section 153A of the Act, approval of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax ('JCIT') would have been taken for issuing the notice under Section 153 A. As it transpires, in the Assessment Ord....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ers dated 10th September, 2013 were passed and the penalty imposed was cancelled on merits. However, on the aspect of penalty orders being barred by limitation, the CIT(A) negated the plea of the Assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the above order of the CIT(A), the Revenue filed the aforementioned two appeals before the ITAT. In the impugned common order the ITAT referred to its earlier decision in DCIT, Central Circle-03, New Delhi v. Raj Katha Products P. Ltd. (order dated 8th March, 2016) which, in turn, relied upon on the decision of this Court in PCIT-5 v. JKD Capital & Finlease Ltd. (2015) 378 ITR 640 (Del). The ITAT, accordingly, held that the penalty orders were barred by limitation under Section 275(1)(c) of the Act. 7. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, ....