TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 1617
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct, 1961 (hereinafter called "the Act"). All the three appeals pertain to assessment year 2000 607 and since they involve identical issues they were heard together and are being disposed of through this common order. 2. The brief facts of the appeals are as under - 2.1 ITA No. 3171/Del/2010 - Rupa Promoters Private Limited - The company is engaged in the work of carrying out of land development. During the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee had received cash from three parties aggregating to Rs. 5,02,03,000/-. Since the assessee company was in receipt of cash in excess of Rs. 20,000/-, the AO held that there was a violation of the provisions of section 269SS of the Act. The assessment was completed on 17th of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (Appeals). 2.3 ITA 3150/Del/2010 - M/s Rishikesh Properties Pvt Limited This company is also engaged in the work of carrying out of land development. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee had received cash aggregating to Rs. 6,35,15,000/- from three companies and he held that there was a violation of the provisions of section 269SS of the Act as the company had received cash in excess of Rs. 20,000/-. The assessment was completed on 18th of December 2008 wherein penalty proceedings under section 271D of the Act were also initiated. Subsequently, notice under section 271D of the Act was issued on 24/03/2009 and after considering the replies of the assessee, the order under section 271D was passe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... It was further submitted that the second possible date was within six months from the end of the month in which the penalty proceedings were initiated. It was submitted that since the penalty proceedings were initiated in December 2008, the last date by which the penalty orders should have been passed was 30th of June 2009. It was submitted that it is undisputed that in all the three cases the penalty orders were passed on 29/09/2009 whereas the limitation had already expired on 30/06/2009. It was submitted that in view of the legal provisions, all the three penalty orders were void ab initio and hence the appeals of the revenue deserved to be dismissed. 3.1 The Ld. Authorised Representative placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'bl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t order. It was submitted that going by the date on which the penalty notices were issued, the limitation period would expire on 30/09/2009 whereas the impugned orders were passed on 29/09/2009 and, therefore, the penalty orders were within the limitation period. It was also submitted that the case laws relied upon by the assessee were distinguishable on facts. It was prayed that the penalty had been wrongly deleted by the Ld. CIT (Appeals) and that the orders of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) should be set-aside and the penalties imposed by the AO be restored. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. The facts of the cases are undisputed that in all the three cases, the assessments were completed i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cause as to why penalty be not levied under section 271D and 271E of the Act. The assessee challenged the initiation of penalty proceedings on the ground of limitation which was negated by the ACIT and penalties were imposed which were confirmed by the Ld. CIT (Appeals). On appeal before the ITAT, the ITAT held that the penalty orders were barred by limitation. On further appeal by the Department, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that the limitation would begin to run from 23/07/2012, which was the date on which a reference was made to the ACIT by the AO for issue of show cause notice. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that since the impugned penalty order was passed on 26/02/2013, the same was beyond the period of limitation which expired....