TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 721
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... facts and circumstances of the case and in the law, the order passed u/s 250(6) r.w.s 271C of the Act, dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant and confirming the levy of penalty of Rs. 1,05,36,376/- by the Ld. CIT(A), without giving any justifiable reasoning and ignoring the submissions made before the Ld. CIT(A) and without appreciating the facts of the case and judicial precedents, is bad in law and is liable to be quashed. 1.2 That the Order dated 31.10.2019 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax - Range 74, imposing the penalty of Rs. 1,05,36,376/- is bad in law for the reason that said order has been issued without the Document Identification Number ("DIN"), which is mandatory in terms of Circular No. 19 of 2019 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....initiated in course of some proceedings pending against the assessee related to the year for which penalty is to be levied. Accordingly, the penalty order passed u/s 271C is liable to be quashed since no proceedings are initiated u/s 201 of the Act on the Appellant company for the FY 2004- OS whereas the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act was completed on Dec 17, 2008. Without prejudice to the above, 2.4 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty levied by the Ld. AO u/s 271C of the Act, on the suo-moto disallowances of the year-end provisions made by the Appellant company u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act, without appreciating that no tax was deductible on the prov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....391/-. The JCIT, Special Range-4, New Delhi sent a proposal for penalty under section 271C of the Act on 27.03.2019 for the said assessment year 2004-05. The said proposal was regarding non deduction of tax at source on the transaction amount of Rs.39,80,73,391/- under provisions of Section 194C of the Act. The tax not deducted at source worked out of Rs.1,05,36,376/-. The AO invoked the provisions of Section 271C of the Act and levied penalty. 3. Before the learned CIT(Appeals) the assessee submitted, inter alia, as under: "1. The notice is barred by limitation and is accordingly bad in law . 2. There was delay in and not failure in deduction of tax at source at the time of crediting the sum to party's account as t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....years, no books of accounts are required to be maintained under Companies Act d) Therefore, initiation of penalty after 14 years is belated and beyond reasonable period as held by the jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. NHK Japan Broadcasting 172 Taxman 230 and Bharti Airtel v. UOI 291 CTR 254 e) Factum of disallowance/non-deduction was known to the AO, which as per the Impugned Penalty order is important - See para 9.3 @ Pg.79 2) Penalty proceedings barred by limitation under Section 275 of the Act a) Admittedly, JCIT Spcl Range-4, New Delhi forwarded the proposal on 27.03.2019 - See para 1 of Impugned Order. b) In terms of decisions of jurisdictional Delhi High Court in CIT v. Mahesh Woods Prod....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it came to be known only then that when the assessee had not deducted tax at source on the global salary. We are of the opinion that the date of knowledge is not relevant for the purposes of exercising jurisdiction insofar as the provisions of the Income-tax Act are concerned. If it were so, the limitation period, as for example prescribed under section 147/148 of the Act would become meaningless if the concept of knowledge is imported into the scheme of the Act." Further, in terms of jurisdictional Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Mahesh Woods Products (P) Ltd. 394 ITR 312 and PCIT vs. Rishikesh Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.577/2019, when the date of initiation for the purposes of Section 275 is 27.03.2019 and, therefore, order ought to have be....