DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

271D, under challenge, is\nbarred by limitation u/s 275(1)(c) of the Act. Hence, the same is hereby quashed. The\nadditional ground of appeal taken by the assessee is therefore, allowed\n8.\nSince I have already quashed the penalty on the short ground of limitation, we do not\npropose to adjudicate the other grounds on merits.”\nHon'ble Delhi

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

penalty proceedings were initiated in terms of section 271 or\nsection 273 which were the principal provisions for imposing penalty under\nChapter XXI. Since the initiation of penalty proceedings was linked with\nassessment proceedings and the orders in such assessments were subject to\nappeal, the findings in such proceedings ordinarily became the foundation for\ninitiating proceedings for penalty and remained

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

271D and 271E of the Act. 2. Penalty order passed is barred by time limitation as the same has not been passed within the time stipulated u/s 275 (1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 3 The AO assessed the alleged loan as Income so out of preview of section 269SS and 269T of the Act. 4. Double Penalty

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

271D and 271E of the Act, the\nassessee filed the appeal before CIT(A). The assessee filed the elaborate written\nsubmission before CIT (A) and contested its case on following footings: -\n1.\nNo satisfaction was recorded in assessment order for imposing the penalty u/s\n271D and 271E of the Act.\n2.\nPenalty order passed is barred by time limitation

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

271D, under challenge, is\nbarred by limitation u/s 275(1)(c) of the Act. Hence, the same is hereby quashed. The\nadditional ground of appeal taken by the assessee is therefore, allowed\n8.\nSince I have already quashed the penalty on the short ground of limitation, we do not\npropose to adjudicate the other grounds on merits.”\nHon'ble Delhi

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

271D and 271E of the Act, the\nassessee filed the appeal before CIT(A). The assessee filed the elaborate written\nsubmission before CIT (A) and contested its case on following footings: -\n1.\nNo satisfaction was recorded in assessment order for imposing the penalty u/s\n271D and 271E of the Act.\n2.\nPenalty order passed is barred by time limitation

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

penalty under section 275 as\noriginally enacted was directly linked with the completion of proceedings in the\ncourse of which the penalty proceedings were initiated in terms of section 271 or\nsection 273 which were the principal provisions for imposing penalty under\nChapter XXI. Since the initiation of penalty proceedings was linked with\nassessment proceedings and the orders in such

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

271D and 271E may have been initiated has no relevance for\nsustaining or not sustaining the penalty proceedings and, therefore, clause (a) of\nsub-section (1) of section 275 cannot be attracted to such proceedings. If that\nwere not so, clause (c) of section 275(1) would be redundant because otherwise,\nas a matter of fact every penalty proceeding

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

271D and 271E of the Act. 2. Penalty order passed is barred by time limitation as the same has not been passed within the time stipulated u/s 275 (1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 3 The AO assessed the alleged loan as Income so out of preview of section 269SS and 269T of the Act. 4. Double Penalty

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

271D and 271E may have been initiated has no relevance for\nsustaining or not sustaining the penalty proceedings and, therefore, clause (a) of\nsub-section (1) of section 275 cannot be attracted to such proceedings. If that\nwere not so, clause (c) of section 275(1) would be redundant because otherwise,\nas a matter of fact every penalty proceeding

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

271 and 273 were the two original penalty provisions, which require the penalty proceedings to be initiated during the course of relevant assessment proceedings or the other relevant proceedings, as the case may be. The penalty proceedings could also be initiated during the appellate proceedings arising out of the relevant assessment proceedings. It is only where the assessment proceedings

KANHIAYA LAL SAIN,JAIPUR vs. JCIT RANGE-7 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the Appeals of the appellant stands allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

u/s 271D is without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty can be levied. The relevant findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court read as under: “In these appeals, we are concerned with the question as to whether penalty proceeding under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) is independent of the assessment proceeding