TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 608
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enging penalty confirmed by the ld. CIT [A] u/s 271 E of The Act are as under: - "The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 49, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 12,23,75,000 levied by the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Range 6, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the Addl. CIT) and further confirming the enhancement of penalty by Rs. 22,99,17,749/-, enhanced by her predecessor under section 271E of the Act. The appellants contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought not to have confirmed the action of the Addl. CIT and her predecessor in levying and enhancing the impugned penalty under section 271 E of the Act. The appellants further, contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A), before confirming the said levy of penalty, has not followed the directions of the Tribunal in their order dated 12th July 2006 and hence, the impugned penalty requires to be quashed. The appellants further, submit that the observations of the CIT(A) in para 5 of her order is factually incorrect inasmuch as the case was discussed with the autho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Provision of Section 269SS of the Act. Therefore, penalty proceedings under section 271D of the Act were initiated by issuing notice by the ld. Adjudicating Authority 15/12/2003. One more notice was issued by the same authority for same office on 16/01/2004. 06. In response to the notice, assessee submitted that assessee is a non-banking financial company engaged in the business of share trading and belongs to Ketan Parekh Group. The assessee referred to the observation of the joint parliamentary committee on enquiry of stock market scam. The learned Assessing Officer after considering the explanation of the assessee held that there is no such reasonable cause. There is no explanation for transaction between sister concern and accordingly, the learned Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-6, Mumbai passed an order under section 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on 30thJuly 2004 levying a penalty of Rs.12,38,75,000/-. 07. Similarly, as the above loans have been are repaid by the assessee to M/s BB Roongta & Company of Rs.25,000/- to M/s AB Corporation of Rs.12,23,50,000/- the show cause notice under section 271E of the Act were issued on 15/12/2003 as there is a viola....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... filed on 1stMarch 2018. It was stated that this is a fresh reason for condonation of delay. The learned Authorized Representative reiterated the same facts. 013. The learned Departmental Representative vehemently objected the same. 014. As we find that the delay is minimal and further there is sufficient cause in not filing the appeal in time. In the interest of justice, we condone the delay. 015. The learned Authorized Representative first submitted that assessee has filed the additional ground of appeal stating that the order of penalty dated 30th July 2004 are bad in law in as much as the same is passed beyond the time limit prescribed under section 275(1)(c) of the Act. The learned Authorized Representative submitted that this additional ground of appeal goes to the root of the matter legal in nature and no fresh facts are required to be investigated, therefore the same may be admitted. 016. The learned Departmental Representative vehemently opposed the additional ground and submitted that now in the second round of appeal before ITAT, the above ground cannot be raised. 017. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and find that the ground raised by the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anges. With respect to the client who trade in both exchanges their accounts are net off by passing journal entry and on which it was held that it is a loan accepted or repaid in violation of provision of section 269SS and 269T of the Act. He submitted that on journal entries no penalty can be levied, for this proposition he relied on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of 92 taxmann.com 229. 022. The learned Departmental Representative Dr. P Daniel referred to the background of the case stating that the assessee belongs to Ketan Parekh group which was involved in stock market scam. He stated that because of the complexities in accounts the assessment was completed after getting accounts audited under section 142(2)(a) of the Act. During assessment proceedings, the fault under section 269SS and 269T of the Act was noted. He submitted that the learned CIT(A) confirmed the penalties in the first round as well as in the second round of appeal. He supported both the orders of the learned Assessing Officer and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). He even otherwise submitted that the assessee has not shown any reasonable cause and therefore penalty under section 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lty orders passed are within time. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mahesh Wood Products (P.) Ltd. [2017] 394 ITR 312 (Delhi) has held that limitation for levy of penalty under section 271D and 271E of the Act would begin to run from the date on which The learned Assessing Officer wrote a letter to the Addl Commissioner income-tax recommending issue of show cause notice for initiating penalty proceedings. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court following its own decision in Pr. CIT vs. JKD and finlease Ltd 378 ITR 614 has held that the orders passed under section 271D and 271E of the Act would be barred by limitation if they were passed beyond six months from the end of the month in which the learned Assessing Officer informed the learned Addl. CIT about the offence and to show cause the notice under section 274 of the Act. Apparently in this case, the first notice was issued on 15.12.2013 and second notice was issued on 16.01.2004 are identical. Therefore, from the date of notice dated 15.12.2003, the penalty order should have been passed on or before 30th June 2004 but were passed on 30th July 2004. Therefore, both the orders of the penalty ....