TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 356
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting the penalty of Rs. 1,48,22,585/- imposed u/s 271D as the loan/deposits were accepted/received in cash by the assessee? 2. The appellant craves its rights to add, amend or alter any of the grounds on or before the hearing." In ITA No. 961/JP/2016 "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting the penalty of Rs. 1,17,04,411/- imposed u/s 271E as the loan/deposits were repaid in cash by the assessee? 2. The appellant craves its rights to add, amend or alter any of the grounds on or before the hearing." 2. During the course of scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) the AO noticed that the assessee has received cash on various dates in perso....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eing barred by limitation as provided u/s 275 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) held that the orders passed by the Joint Commissioner u/s 271D and 271E are beyond 6 months from the date of initiation of the penalty proceedings vide first show cause notice issued by the AO and accordingly the ld. CIT(A) set aside the penalty orders passed u/s 271D and 271E. 3. Before us, the ld. DR has submitted that initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271D and 271E would be reckoned by the notice issued by Joint CIT who is competent to levy of penalty therefore, any notice issued by the Assessing officer who is not competent to proceed with the penalty proceedings u/s 271D and 271E of the Act will be inconsequential for the purpose of deciding the limitation. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... first show cause notice was issued by the ITO on 30.12.2011 at the time of completion of the assessment and the second show cause notice was issued thereafter by the additional/Joint Commissioner on 10.09.2012. The assessee has raised the question of validity of the orders passed u/s 271D and 271E being barred by limitation as these orders dated 25.03.2013 as per the assessees were beyond the period of 6 months from the date of the first show cause notice dated 30.11.2011 the limitation as provided u/s 275(1)(c) of the Act. So far as the fact of issuing two show cause notices one by the ITO on 30.12.2011 and another by the Additional/Joint Commissioner on 10.09.2012, the same is not disputed by the Revenue. Therefore question arises whethe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of CIT Vs. Jitendra Singh Rathore (supra) has held in para 8 to 10 as under:- 8. In the present case, the notice for issuance of the penalty proceedings under Section 271D of the Act for the alleged contravention of provisions of Section 269SS was issued to the assessee, of course by the AO, on 25.03.2003. Even if the matter had otherwise been in appeal before the CIT(A) against the original assessment order and the appeal was decided on 13.02.2004, the same was hardly of relevance so far the penalty proceedings under Section 271D were concerned. As held by this Court in Hissaria Bros. (supra), completion of appellate proceedings arising out of assessment proceedings has no relevance over sustaining such penalty proceedings. As held cle....