TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 506
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n order dated 29.04.2024 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter the learned ITAT) in ITA No. 6597/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. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....us the proceedings were required to be completed by 31.03.2015. It is the Revenue's contention that the date of initiation of penalty 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oceedings could be initiated. In other words, the initiation of penalty proceedings did not hinge on the completion of the appellate quantum proceedings. This position has been 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dings under Section 271-E to the Additional CIT. For some reason, the Additional CIT did not issue a show cause notice to the Assessee under Section 271-E (1) till 20th March 2012. There is no explanation 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 orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l sense. 15. The word 'initiated' is a past tense of the word 'initiate'. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines the word 'initiate' as under: "to begin, commence, enter upon, to introduce, set going, 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 con....