2024 (9) TMI 786

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....066451(1) 12. 04. 2024 2012-13 Filed By assessee challenging imposition of Penalty u/s 271(1) (c) 2 1479/Chny/2024 CIT(A) ITBA/NFAC/S/ 250/2024-25/1064066528(1) 12. 04. 2024 2013-14 -do- 3 1480/Chny/2024 CIT(A) ITBA/NFAC/S/ 250/2024-25/1064066065(1) 12. 04. 2024 2014-15 -do- 4 1481/Chny/2024 CIT(A) ITBA/NFAC/S/ 250/2024-25/1064066154(1) 12. 04. 2024 2015-16 -do- 5 1482/Chny/2024 CIT(A) ITBA/NFAC/S/ 250/2024-25/1064066324(1) 12. 04. 2024 2016-17 -do- 6 1483/Chny/2024 CIT(A) ITBA/NFAC/S/ 250/2024-25/1064116559(1) 16. 04. 2024 2012-13 Filed By assessee challenging imposition of Penalty u/s 271A 7 1484/Chny/2024 CIT(A) ITBA/NFAC /S/ 250/2024-25/1064116753(1) 16. 04. 2024 2013-14 -do- 8 1485/Chny/20....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....01.02.2022 Supra, the assessee has challenged the imposition thereof. Through its grounds of appeal the assessee has primarily argued that the penalty is non-maintainable as the Ld. AO has miscalculated the additions in the OGE and that the specific charge was not mentioned as to whether assessee had concealed its income or had furnished inaccurate particulars thereof. 5.0 The only issue which arises in the matter is as to whether the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been lawfully levied or not. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has primarily harped on the premises that the amount determined by the Ld. AO in the OGE was not inconsonance with the directions of this tribunal in order dated 10.11.2020 Supra, it has also been argued that no penalty u/....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lty imposed by the Revenue u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, is non-maintainable in the eyes of law and hence deserves to be quashed. The Ld. DR has submitted vide his paper book dated 13.08.2024 which, inter-alia, contains original penalty notices u/s 271(1)(c) issued to the assessee. It is seen that the said notices were issued on 19.12.2019. As discussed herein above, the original assessment order was passed on 13.12.2019. Consequently, the penalty notice ought to have been issued on or before 13.12.2019. Any notice issued after 13.12.2019 becomes non est in the eyes of law. 7.0 It is seen that section 271(1)(c) of the Act clearly empowers an assessing officer to initiate penalty proceedings if "...in the course of any proceedings under this Ac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., Appeal vide ITA Nos. 1483 for AY-2012-13 is taken as the lead year. Original assessment u/s 143(3) was passed vide order dated 13.12.2019. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO had asked the assessee to provide the details of consultation fees received from out patients, bills, vouchers etc which it was required to maintain within meanings of Rule-6F of IT rules. According to AO the same was done so as to ascertain the impugned receipts were accounted for in the books of accounts of the assessee. The Ld. AO noted that in spite of given opportunities the assessee failed to produce evidences that it had maintained its records etc as mandated in Rule-6F of IT rules. The Ld. AO therefore proceeded to levy the penalty u/s 271....