AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 735
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 28 June 2024 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-15, Bengaluru ["CIT(A)"] under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("IT Act") dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant and upholding the penalty order dated 15.02.2022 passed by the learned Assessing Officer, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2(1), Bengaluru ("AO") under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, is contrary to law and facts of the case and is passed in contravention of principles of natural justice. 2. The CIT(A) and AO has erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the submissions made by the Appellant thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 3. The CIT(A) and AO has erred and ought not have acted mechanically and has not objectively evaluated the merits of the case. GROUNDS ON MERITS: 4. The CIT(A) has erred in upholding the order of the AO levying penalty of Rs. 1,78,448/- under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act alleging concealment of particulars of income. 5. The CIT(A) and AO have erred in not appreciating that the income declared by the Appellant in the return filed in response to the notice under section 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ars of income. 5. The CIT(A) and AO have erred in not appreciating that the income declared by the Appellant in the return filed in response to the notice under section 153C was accepted by the AO without any change. 6. The CIT(A) and AO have erred levying penalty by holding that additional income was disclosed by the Appellant only after evidence was collected by the Department based on search action under section 132 of the IT Act. 7. The CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the AO erred in passing order under section 270A of the IT Act without appreciating the fact that Appellant has not made any willful attempt to evade tax and there is no concealment of income. 8. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of penalty without appreciating that the Appellant has voluntarily declared the income to buy peace with the Department 9. The CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the AO had not discharged its burden of proving its concealment as no clinching documents were found against the Appellant during the course of search. Each of the above grounds are independent and without prejudice to the other ground of appeal preferred by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the appeals before the ld. CIT(A) for all the impugned Asst. years. 3.3 The ld. CIT(A) dismissed all these appeals u/s 250 of the Act dated 28.6.2024 by passing separate appellate orders by confirming the orders of the AO in levying the penalties. 3.4 Aggrieved by the orders of ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. At the outset, the ld. A.R. of the assessee vehemently submitted that all these appeals are barred by limitation as per the provisions contained in section 275(1)(c) of the Act i.e. the penalty orders were not passed within 6 months from the end of the month in which action for imposition of penalty were initiated & therefore all the penalty Orders are illegal, bad in law & liable to be quashed. 5. The ld. D.R. on the other hand supported the orders of the authorities below. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is an undisputed fact that on perusal of the Assessment Orders show that the AO initiated the penalty in the Assessment Order(s) itself. For the sake of brevity and convenience, we are depicting herewith the entire facts for all these assessment years in a tabular form as under: Sl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....may be, the Appellate Tribunal is received by the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, whichever period expires later: [Provided that in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject matter of an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 246 or section 246-A, and the Commissioner (Appeals) passes the order on or after the 1st day of June, 2003 disposing of such appeal, an order imposing penalty shall be passed before the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed, or within one year from the end of the financial year in which the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is received by the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, whichever is later;] [Inserted by Act 32 of 2003, Section 96 (w.e.f. 1.6.2003).] (b)in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject-matter of revision under section 263 [or section 264] [Inserted by Act 32 of 2003, Section 96 (w.e.f. 1.6.2003).], after the expiry of six months from the end of the month in which such order of revision is passed; (c)in any other case, after the expiry of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on would expire on 28 February, 2013. Therefore, the penalty orders having been passed on 26 February, 2013 would not barred by limitation. He also sought to distinguish the decision of this Court in PCIT-5 v. JKD Capital & Finlease Ltd. (supra) by stating that in the said case, the gap between the intimation send by the AO recommending initiation of penalty proceedings and the action taken by the ACIT was nearly five years, whereas in the present case, it was slightly over one month. xxx xxx xxx 9. However, this question came up for consideration in PCIT v. JKD Capital& Finlease Ltd. (supra). The date on which the AO recommended the initiation of penalty proceedings was taken to be the relevant date as far as Section 275(1)(c) was concerned. There was no explanation for the delay of nearly five years in the ACIT acting on the said recommendation. The Court held that the starting point would be the 'initiation' of penalty proceedings. Given the scheme of Section 275(1)(c) it would be the date on which the AO wrote a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Income-tax passed on March 20, 2012, was within limitation. 7. We are unable to agree with the above submission of learned standingcounsel for the Revenue. Section 275(1)(c) reads as under: "275. (1) No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be passed... (c) in any other case, after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed, or six months from the end of the month in which action for imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever period expires later." 8. In terms of the above provision, there are two distinct periods of limitation for passing a penalty order, and one that expires later will apply. One is the end of the financial year in which the quantum proceedings are completed in the first instance. In the present case, at the level of the Assessing Officer, the quantum proceedings was completed on December 28, 2007. Going by this date, the penalty order could not have been passed later than March 31, 2008. The second possible date is the expiry of six months from the month in which the penalty proceedings were initiate....