TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 944
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 30th September, 2009 declaring the total income of Rs. 4,73,090/-. The Assessing Officer concluded the assessment u/s 143(3) determining the total income at Rs. 30,13,660/- by making various additions. The assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A), but, without any success. Subsequently, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide ITA No.5413/Del/2012, order dated 5th February, 2016, restored the issue to the Assessing Officer with certain directions. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed the order on 21.11.2016 determining the total income at Rs. 6,73,090/-. In the mean time, the Assessing Officer has initiated penalty proceedings u/s 27....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome. Since it is barred by limitation, therefore, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer deserves to be deleted. 5. However, the ld.CIT(A) was not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee. She noted that the assessee filed the return of income on 30th September, 2016 along with unaudited Profit & Loss Account and balance sheet. Since the assessee failed to get its accounts audited as per the provisions of section 44AB and since there is no limitation for initiation of penalty u/s 271B and such penalty need not be initiated during the course of any assessment proceedings only, the ld.CIT(A) confirmed the penalty so levied by the Assessing Officer. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal befor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the penalty proceedings u/s 271B initiated 34 months after the completion of assessment was held to be invalid. He accordingly submitted that since, in the instant case, the penalty proceedings have been initiated after a period of more than four years, therefore, the penalty so levied by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(A) is not justified. He also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. NHK Japan Corporation reported in 305 ITR 132. 9. The ld. DR, on the other hand, heavily relied on the order of the CIT(A). He submitted that the turnover of the assessee is more than the prescribed limit and, therefore, the assessee should have got its accounts audited. Since the assessee has failed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....notice was issued after more than 4 ½ years from the end of the original assessment. As per the provisions of section 275(1)(c), no order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be passed in any case, after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed or six months from the end of the month in which action for imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever period expires later. As per the various decisions relied on by the ld. counsel for the assessee, penalty is not leviable where the penalty proceedings were not initiated long after the completion of the assessment and the assessment order was silent about the levy of pena....