2018 (3) TMI 1205

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Tax u/s 271D of the Act for violation of provisions of section 269SS of the I.T.Act. 2. The assessee is challenging the validity of penalty order passed by the Addl. Commissioner and also contesting the levy of penalty of Rs. 6,45,000/- imposed by him. 3. The facts relating to the issue are discussed in brief. The assessee is having a petrol bunk, cinema hall and also dealing in automobiles. The assessment order for the assessment year 2006-07 was completed by the Assessing Officer (AO) on 31.12.2008. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee had received share application money to the tune of Rs. 97.17 lakhs. The AO made enquiries with regard to the share applicants and finally made an addition o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....anti Venkatappala Naidu 24.11.1005 75,000 10. Vempatapu Tati Naidu 23.12.2005 60,000   Total    6,45,000 The appeal filed before the Ld.CIT(A) challenging the penalty order was dismissed by the Ld.CIT(A). Hence the assessee has filed appeal before us. 5. The assessee has raised a legal issue contesting the validity of the penalty order on the grounds of limitation. The Ld.AR submitted that the proceedings u/s 271D of the Act was initiated separately by the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax on 25.06.2009 as per the provisions of section 275(1)(c) of the Act. He submitted that the order imposing penalty should have been passed within six months from the end of the month in which the action for....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r should have been passed by the Addl.Commissioner of Income Tax on or before 31.12.2009. Since the impugned order has been passed on 30.03.2010, the same is barred by limitation and hence liable to be quashed. 9. We have earlier observed that there is no material on record to show that the assessing officer has issued any notice u/s 271D of the Act. Even if it is assumed that the assessing officer has issued a notice u/s 271D on the date of assessment order, i.e., on 31-12-2008, the same would become time barred by 30-06-2009, i.e., within six months from the end of the month in which action for imposition of penalty is initiated, for the reason that the penalty proceedings u/s 271D of the Act cannot be considered to be an action initia....