TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 506
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....597/Del/2017 captioned ITO v. Turner General Entertainment Networks India Pvt. Ltd. 2. The Revenue has projected several questions for consideration of this Court. However, the only question that arises in the present appeal is whether the order levying penalty under Section 271C of the Act is barred by limitation. The learned ITAT had held in the affirmative. 3. In the present case, the assessee had filed his return of income for the assessment year 2011-2012 on 30.11.2011 declaring a total loss of Rs. 2,62,04,18,432/-. The tax audit report furnished by the assessee had reported that the assessee had not deducted Rs. 5,00,40,103/- as tax at source which was deductable by the assessee. The return was selected for scrutiny and the assessme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nalty proceedings is required to be considered as the date of issuance of the show cause notice; that is, 04.08.2015. 7. The learned CIT(A) held that the said issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decisions of this Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 v. Mahesh Wood Products Pvt. Ltd.; 2017 (82 Taxmann.com 39) decided on 05.05.2017, and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5 v. JKD Capital & Finlease Ltd.; ITA No. 780/2015 decided on 13.10.2015. 8. Aggrieved by the decision of the learned CIT(A), the Revenue appealed the said decision before the learned ITAT. The learned ITAT concurred with the learned CIT(A) and dismissed the said appeal. 9. The period of limitation within which the proceedings under Sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een made explicit in the decision in CIT v. Worldwide Township Projects Limited (supra) in which the Court concurred with the view expressed in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Hissaria Bros. (2007) 291 ITR 244 (Raj) in the following terms: "The expression other relevant thing used in s. 275 (1) (a) and cl. (b) of Sub-s. (1) of S. 275 is significantly missing from cl. (c) of s. 275 (1) to make out this distinction very clear. We are, therefore, of the opinion that since penalty proceedings for default in not having transactions through the bank as required under ss. 269SS and 269T are not related to the assessment proceeding but are independent of it, therefore, the completion of appellate proceedings arising out of the assessment proceeding....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xplanation whatsoever for the delay of nearly five years after the assessment order in the Additional CIT issuing notice under Section 271-E of the Act. The Additional CIT ought to have been conscious of the limitation under Section 275 (1) (c), i.e., that no order of penalty could have been passed under Section 271-E after the expiry of the financial year in which the quantum proceedings were completed or beyond six months after the month in which they were initiated, whichever was later. In a case where the proceedings stood initiated with the order passed by the AO, by delaying the issuance of the notice under Section 271-E beyond 30th June 2008, the Additional CIT defeated the very object of Section 275 (1) (c). 12. In that view of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng, originate." 16. In Webster's Third New International Dictionary, the word 'initiate' has, inter alia, been defined thus: "to begin or set going: make a beginning of: perform or facilitate the first actions, steps, or stages of:" 17. The Words and Phrases (Permanent Edition) defines 'initiate' to mean: "an introductory step or action, a first move; beginning; start, and to initiate as meaning - to commence." 18. In Om Prakash Jaiswal v. D.K. Mittal & Anr.: (2000) 3 SCC 171, the Supreme Court had considered the meaning of the expression 'initiate any proceedings for contempt' by referring to the dictionary meaning of the said word. It is relevant to refer to paragraph 10 of the said decision, which is set out below: "10. The expr....