TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 992
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 14.02.2023 for A.Y 2017-18. 2. The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the impugned penalty of Rs. 67 lakhs imposed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is void ab initio and barred by limitations. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee had sold immovable....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the penalty is time barred. 6. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that there were no assessment proceedings pending in the case and under the provisions of section 275(1)(c) of the Act, penalty order has to be made six months from the date of initiation of penalty proceedings. The ld. counsel for the assessee stated that the Assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourt in the case of Kalyan Kumar Ray 191 ITR 634. 8. On the other hand, the ld. DR vehemently argued that the provisions of section 275(1)(c) of the Act provides for one year from the end of the F.Y. in which penalty is initiated. Therefore, in the instant case, as the penalty order has been passed within the end of that year, the same cannot be considered as time barred. 9. We have heard the ri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CIT had the discretion whether or not to issue the SCN, if he did decide to issue a SCN, the limitation would begin to run from the date of letter of the AO recommending 'initiation' of the penalty proceedings. 10. In the present case, the limitation in terms of Section 275 (1) (iii) of the Act began to run on 23rd July, 2012 and the last date for passing the penalty orders was 31st Janu....