“Section 275(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 275Section 275(1)152 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 275(1) is CIT v. Eli Lily & Co. (312 ITR 225), cited in 221 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 275(1)

CIT v. Eli Lily & Co.

312 ITR 225 · 2009 · Supreme Court

221

citing judgments

Section 195 of the Income Tax Act, which mandates tax withholding on payments to non-residents, applies only to sums that are otherwise chargeable to tax under the Act. Tax withholding provisions are not charging provisions.

CIT v. Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd.

261 ITR 275 · 2003 · Supreme Court

204

citing judgments

A liability recognized in accordance with the Accounting Standards prescribed by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) is an allowable expense for income tax purposes.

CIT v. Hissaria Bros.

291 ITR 244 · 2007 · High Court

132

citing judgments

Penalty proceedings for defaults under Sections 269SS and 269T are independent of assessment proceedings; therefore, the limitation period under Section 275(1)(c) for imposing such penalties is not contingent on the completion of appellate quantum proceedings.

Pr. CIT v. Golden Peace Hotels and Resorts (P) Ltd.

124 Taxmann.com 249 · 2021 · Supreme Court

105

citing judgments

A penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) is not sustainable if the notice issued under Section 274 fails to specifically mention whether the charge relates to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessing Officer must specify the exact charge for the penalty to be valid.

Sanjay Sawhney v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax

116 Taxmann.com 701 · 2020 · High Court

citing judgments

Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules allows a respondent to defend a favourable order of the CIT(A) by raising grounds decided against them, even without filing an appeal or cross-objection. Such issues can be raised orally and for the first time before the Tribunal.

Principal Commissioner of Income-tax\n(Central)-2 v. Mahesh Wood Products (P.) Ltd.

394 ITR 312 · 2017 · High Court

citing judgments

The date of initiation of penalty proceedings for the purpose of Section 275(1)(c) is when the Assessing Officer records a satisfaction or recommends penalty, not the later date when the Joint/Additional Commissioner of Income Tax issues the penalty notice.

CIT v. Hissaria Brothers

386 ITR 719 · 2016 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

The relevant date for determining the limitation period under Section 275(1)(c) for passing penalty orders under Sections 271D and 271E is the date of passing the assessment order.

CIT v. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills Ambala City

64 Taxmann.com 75 · 2015 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

For initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271D or 271E, the Assessing Officer must record satisfaction in the assessment order; non-recording of such satisfaction is fatal to the penalty.

Judgments citing Section 275(1)

M/S. Sri. Muthu Cine Service, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bengaluru

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1631/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri B. S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri V. Parithivel, JCIT

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153CSection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(c)

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 ... Time barred Time barred barred M/s. Sri Muthu Cine Service, Bangalore 6.1 Before proceeding further, it is apposite here to take note of section 275(1) of the Act for the purpose this case, which reads as under: “Section 275 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 275. [ Bar of limitation

M/S. Sri. Muthu Cine Service, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -2(1), Bengaluru

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1630/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri B. S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri V. Parithivel, JCIT

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153CSection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(c)

M/S. Sri. Muthu Cine Service, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1629/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153CSection 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(c)

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 ... ITANos. 1629 to 1632&1654/Bang/2024 M/s. Sri Muthu Cine Service, Bangalore 6.1 Before proceeding further, it is apposite here to take note of section 275(1) of the Act for the purpose this case, which reads as under: “Section 275 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 275. [ Bar of limitation

Selvaraj Arputharaj, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-I, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

ITA 2031/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2029/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2012-13 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2030/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2031/Chny/2024, Assessment Years: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri R.Anish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anita, Addl. CIT

Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

order of the Hon’ble Coordinate bench became final on the quantum addition of impugned under statement of income. Within the meanings of section 275(1)(a) the revenue was required to conclude penalty proceedings qua the quantum addition of impugned under statement of income within six months from ... Ld.AO vide its order dated 25.10.2021. The Ld. DR argued that the case would fall within the meanings of proviso to section 275 (1)(a) and the department gets time to complete the same within one year from the end of the financial year in which order

Selvaraj Arputharaj, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-I, Coimbaotore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

ITA 2030/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri R.Anish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anita, Addl. CIT

Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

Selvaraj Arputharaj, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-I, Coimbaotore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

ITA 2029/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri R.Anish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anita, Addl. CIT

Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

Sree Rajendra Suri Gurumandir Trust, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, (Exemption) Ward-3, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2020/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2015-16 Sree Rajendrasuri Gurumandir Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), 25 & 25/1, Jain Temple Road, Ward – 3, Vishwweswarapuram, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 004. Pan : Aajts 8921 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ar. Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.12.2024 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahuthis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1056681273 (1)] Dated 30.09.2023. 2. The Sole & Substantiating Ground Raised By The Assessee To Challenge Order Of Nfac Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao Of Rs.54,700/- Under Section 272A(2)(E) Of The Act, For Delay In Filing The Return Of Income. The Due Date For Filing Return Of Income Was 30.09.2015 But The Assessee Filed Its Return On 31.03.2017. Accordingly, Ao Levied Penalty Under Section 272A(2)(E) Of The Act Of Rs.54,700/-. Page 2 Of 9 3. At The Outset Of Hearing, The Learned Counsel Drew Our Attention That The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Barred By 328 Days. However, The Registry Has Not Raised Any Defect Memo For Delay In Filing The Appeal. An Application Dated 22.11.2024 Has Been Filed By The Assessee Stating Therein The Reasons For Delay In Filing The Assessee Which Is As Under:

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 12ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 272A(2)(e)Section 275(1)(c)

have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The main contention of the ld. A.R. is that as per section 275(1)(c) of the Act, the order u/s 272A(2)(e) of the Act is to be passed before the expiry of financial year ... Tribunal in the case of Amit Sabharwal in ITA No.886/Del/2018 dated 14.5.2019. In the present case, as per clause (c) of section 275(1) of the Act, the penalty proceedings u/s 272A(2)(e) of the Act have been initiated vide notice dated 21.12.2020. According to ld. A.R., the time

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Thapar Homer Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6423/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishradcit, Central Circle- M/S. Thapar Homes 15 Limited, B-10, Vs Shivalik, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi- 110017 Pan No:Aaecm0840R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 269TSection 271ESection 274Section 275

AddI.CIT vide notice dated 13.6.2011 which was replied by the appellant on 20.6.2011. It has been claimed by the appellant that provisions of section 275 (1)(c) were attracted in the case of assessee which read as under:- "(c) in any other case, after the expiry of the financial year ... pass the penalty order by the competent authority, in this case JCIT/Addl.CIT was to end on 30.6.2011 as per the provision of section 275(1)(c). The issue whether the limitation period as specified u/s 275(1)(a) of the Act would be applicable to the facts of the case

India Tube Mills and Metal Industries Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-15(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 2262/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Surinder Mehra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar (SRDR)

Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)

filed by the appellant company before him in that regard. 2.b) That this is in view of the provisions of proviso to Section 275(1) (a) of the Act. The order of the CIT(A) for the assessment year under consideration is dated 25.10.2019 and was received ... filed by the appellant company before him in that regard. 2.b) That this is in view of the provisions of proviso to Section 275(1) (a) of the Act. The order of the CIT(A) for the assessment year under consideration is dated 25.10.2019 and was received

Shweta Sharma, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 58(7), Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1099/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usa.Yr. : 2017-18 Shweta Sharma, Vs. Income Tax Officer, F-12/31, 3Rd Floor, Ward 58(7), Krishna Nagar, Vikas Bhawan, Delhi – 110 051 New Delhi – 110 002 (Pan: Bcbps0393G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Shashi Kajle, Sr. DR

Section 153(1)Section 246A(1)(a)Section 269SSection 271DSection 273BSection 275(1)Section 282

information of default came to knowledge of the department and therefore, the order of penalty is barred by limitation laid down under section 275(1) of the I.T. Act. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) has erred both on facts

Makashood Asharaf, Lakhimpur Kheri vs. The Income Tax Officer, Lakhimpur Kheri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 200/LKW/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Makashood Asharaf, 98-Moh. The Income Tax Officer, Seikh Sarain, Kheri Town, Distt.- Vs. Range-3(4), Lakhimpur Kheri- Lakhimpur Kheri-1 (U.P.) 1 Pan:Bkwpa9250R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024 O R D E R Per Sh. Nikhil Choudhary: This Is An Appeal Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 28.07.2022 Upholding The Penalty Levied Under Section 271B By The Ito-3(4), Lakhimpur-1 Vide His Order Dated 25.11.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271BSection 44A

purposes of imposing penalty under section 271B, its initiation in the course of assessment proceedings was not necessary within the meaning of section 275(1)(c). He, therefore, upheld the levy of penalty and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved with the said dismissal, the assessee has come

Vimal Todi, Indore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Indore

Appeals are allowed

ITA 190/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 153ASection 253(5)Section 269SSection 271D

limitation prescribed in section 275. The assessee also raised this very issue before CIT(A) but the CIT(A) referred following provision of section 275(1)(c): “275(1) No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be passed – (a) XXX (b) XXX (c) in any other case, after ... Date on which the penalty-orders were passed by Competent Officer – 28.03.2019 9. Then, Ld. AR referred the very same provision of section 275(1)(c) as analysed by Ld. CIT(A), re-produced in earlier para. Ld. AR explained that there are two limbs in section 275(1

Vimal Todi, Indore vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Indore

Appeals are allowed

ITA 189/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 153ASection 253(5)Section 269SSection 271D

Sweta Chirimar, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 29(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 619/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm &Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am]

Section 10(38)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 275Section 275(1)(c)Section 68

took us through the provisions of Section 275 of the Act which deals with the bar on imposing of penalties and referring to Section 275(1)(c) of the Act it was stated that the penalty order was required to be framed either after the expiry of the financial year ... very same assessment order, penalty proceedings were initiated but finally the order was framed on 17/01/2022. Though, the period referred in Section 275(1)(c) of the Act expired before the framing of penalty order on 17/01/2022, we, however considering the fact that from March, 2021 onwards the country passed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh vs. James Hotels Ltd, Chandigarh

ITA 552/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: The Said Resolution To Enhance Authorized Share Capital.

For Appellant: Shri R.K. KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT, DR

Section 143(2)Section 269SSection 271D

31/03/2015 and since the Addl. CIT, Chandigarh has passed the penalty order on 20/11/2015, the same is barred by limitation as provided under section 275(1)(c) of the Act. The submissions so filed by the assessee were considered but not found acceptable

Romaa Housing Private Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment

ITA 1347/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1345 To 1346 & 1347/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20 V. M/S.Romaa Housing Pvt. Ltd., The Addl.Cit, No.1/107 & 108, Agr Tower, Central Range-3, P.H.Road Nerkundram, Chennai. Chennai-600 107. [Pan: Aaecr 6992 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Lekha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. T.M. Suganthamala

Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 274Section 275(1)(c)

Penalty is that the penalty imposed is bad in law, since it has been passed after the time-barring date as prescribed under section 275(1)(c) of the Act, wherein it is mandated that the Authority imposing penalty u/s.271D or 271E of the Act had to pass within ... order dated 22nd July 2013, the CIT (A) deleted the above penalty inter alia on the ground that, in terms of Section 275 (1) (c) of the Act, the penalty order could have only been passed on or before 30th June 2008 and therefore, the penalty order passed on 20th

Romaa Housing Private Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment

ITA 1346/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Lekha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. T.M. Suganthamala

Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 274Section 275(1)(c)

Romaa Housing Private Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment

ITA 1345/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Lekha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. T.M. Suganthamala

Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 274Section 275(1)(c)

Century Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Vadodara vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Present Jurisdiction the DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

ITA 867/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 867/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Century Pharmaceuticals Ltd., बनाम Assessment Unit, 406, World Trade Centre, Income Tax Department Vs. Sayajigunj, Vadodara Represented Through Gujarat-390005 Dcit, Circle-1(1)(1), Baroda Pan: Aaacc 7646 K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Shri M.J. Shah & Shri Rushin Patel, Ars िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Hrishikesh Hemant Patki, Sr Dr ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By: सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short Referred To As “The Act”] Dated 26.02.2024, Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Of Rs.1,50,000/- U/S 271B Of The Act, For Delayed Furnishing Of Tax Audit Report As Required U/S 44Ab Of The Act, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are Descriptive & Argumentative In Nature. I Am, Therefore, Reproducing Only The Highlighted Portion Of The Grounds Of Appeal Which Are As Follows:- “1. On The Facts & On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of Your Appellant’S Case & In Law, The Honorable Cit-Appeals (Nfac) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Ao Of Invoking Provision Of Section 271B, In Our Case After The Six Years By Violating The Provision Of The Section 275(1) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Hrishikesh Hemant Patki, Sr DR

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 271Section 271BSection 275(1)Section 44A

invoking provision of Section 271B, in our case after the six years by violating the provision of the Section 275(1) of the Act. (SMC) ITA No. 867/Ahd /2024 Century Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vs. DCIT AY : 2016-17 2 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of your appellant

Vishwanath Aggarwal, Delhi vs. The Addl. CIT, Central Range-05, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty is deleted

ITA 618/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaitas No.611 To 618/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2012-13, 2011-12,2013-14, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Vishwanath Aggarwal, Vs Addl. Cit, House No.98, Block C-2, Range-05, Janakpuri, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Abxpa4825B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate & Shri Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’ For Short) In Appeals Filed Before Him Against The Penalty Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao, For Short). Further Details Of The Penalty Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR

Section 132ASection 153ASection 269SSection 271DSection 271E

date on which reference was made by the DDIT(Inv.) to the AO was 18.03.2016. If limitation is counted in accordance with section 275(1)(c) then the penalties were required to be levied by 30th September 2016. In the case of the appellant the penalties have ITAs No.611 ... independent of assessment proceedings. The Hon’ble Court held that; “On such penalty proceedings, independent of the assessment proceedings, clause (c) of section 275(1) has been made applicable. In this category, the period of limitation for completing the penalty proceedings is linked with the initiation of the penalty proceedings