2017 (8) TMI 1750

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent is cash to sister was not violation of section 269T { Para 3 of the CIT (A) Order}" while penalties u/s 271E &D were imposed and duly entered in D&CR at serial NO. P-3 & 4. 2. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case the CIT (A) is right in quashing the order of imposing penalty of Rs. 20,00,000/- u/s 271D on the ground of limitation of initiation of penalty whereas limitation for initiation of penalty proceedings has not been prescribed for penalty action and limitation for assessment case not apply for penalty proceedings as. held in Dewan Chand Amrit Lal Vs. DCIT (ITAT, SB-CHD) 9.8 ITD 200. 3. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case the CIT (A) is right in deleting the penalty of Rs. 20,00,000/- u/s 271D ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ispute and allowed the appeal of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved with impugned order dated 24.1.2017, Revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Ld. DR relied upon the order of the AO and reiterated the contentions raised in the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue. 5. In this case, Notice of hearing to the assessee was sent by the Registered AD post, in spite of the same, assessee, nor his authorized representative appeared to prosecute the matter in dispute, nor filed any application for adjournment. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the issue involved in the present Appeal, I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served to issue notice again and again to the assessee, therefore, I am decidi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The order under appeal is being time barred as passed after 6 months from issue of 1st notice which was issued on 05/07.05.2014 and as such order should have been passed within 6 months i.e. upto 30.11.2014 whereas the order under appeal was passed on 28.04.2015. Thus it is clear that order was passed after 11 months, which was to be passed within 6 months. Sec. 275(I)(c) of the act is reproduced here under for ready reference :- 275(1)(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 l....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....duly explained in compliance to show cause notice issued u/s 271D & 271E by the AO. The amount was received as Ammanat and duly been given back to the Sister. The amount received as Ammanat cannot be treated as acceptance of loan. The Hon'ble P&H High Court in the case of Jagbir Singh Balraj Kumar & Co. vs CIT reported at 32 Indian Taxation Reports 422 has held as "Amount Received as Ammanat - No Penalty". In another case of G.D. Sabhraya Sheregur vs ITO reported at 10 SOT 378 the Hon'ble Bangalore ITAT has held as (Transaction between closely related persons such as father and son would fall outside scope of section 269SS." In the case of the appellant the transaction is between brother and sister which is also a close relati....