TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 713
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...."NFAC"], Delhi, dated 14.10.2024, relating to the assessment year 2017-2018, respectively. 2. Brief facts of the case, are that, the assessee is an individual and filed her return of income on 13.10.2018 for the impugned assessment year 2017-2018 admitting taxable income of Rs. 4,98,980/- besides agricultural income of Rs. 25,000/-. The case of the assessee has been selected for scrutiny under CASS and the assessment has been completed u/sec.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short "the Act"] vide order dated 16.12.2019, by accepting the returned income of the assessee. Further, during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that there are violation of provisions of sec.269SS of the Act in respect of cash....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er levied penalty u/sec.271D of the Act on Rs. 61,50,000/-. 2.2. Aggrieved by the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee has challenged validity of the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/sec.271D of the Act dated 25.01.2022 in light of provisions of sec.275(1)(c) of the Act and argued that the order passed by the Assessing Officer imposing penalty u/sec.271D of the Act is barred by limitation. The learned CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee and also by following decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs., Mahesh Wood Products Pvt. Ltd., ITA.No.786 of 2016, dated 05.05.2017 and also the de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bmitted that the order of the learned CIT(A) should be set-aside and the order of the Assessing Officer imposing the penalty u/sec.271D of the Act should be upheld. The Learned DR for the Revenue further relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs., Sahara India Financial Corpn. Ltd., reported in [2020] 119 taxmann.com 285 (SC) on the issue of levy of penalty u/sec.271D of the Act and the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Grihalakshmi Vision vs., Addl. CIT, Range-1, Kozhikode reported in [2015] 63 taxmann.com 196 (Kerala) besides CBDT's Circular No.09/DV/2016 dated 26.04.2016 and accordingly, submitted that there is no merit in the Revenue's appeal and, therefore, the appeal of the Revenue sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion of penalty is initiated whichever period expires later. In the present case, although, the date on which, the Assessing Officer has referred to range head is not clear, but, undoubtedly, if we go by the first show cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer, proposing penalty u/sec.271D of the Act, i.e., on 30.03.2021, the order imposing penalty u/sec.271D of the Act ought to have been passed on or before 30.09.2021, whereas, in the present case, the Assessing Officer passed the order imposing penalty u/sec.271D of the Act on 25.01.2022. Therefore, in our considered view, the order passed by the Assessing Officer is beyond the time limit provided under the provisions of sec.275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and thus, it is invalid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x Act, 1961 and, therefore, the order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 25.01.2022 is well within the extended period of limitation by virtue of the CBDT's Notification dated 17.09.2021 (supra) and that, the learned CIT(A) without appreciating the facts of the case, simply quashed the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has examined the issue of Notification issued by the CBDT in exercise of the powers conferred u/sec.3(1) of TOLA in the case of Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC) and clearly held that in case the completion of any action relates to passing of any order falls between 20.03.2020 and 31.03.2021, then, the said "due dates" are extended by virt....