Circular No. 10/2016
F.No.279/Misc./M-140/2015-ITJ
Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Revenue
Central Board of Direct Taxes
******
New Delhi, 26th April , 2016
Subject:- Limitation for penalty proceedings under sections 271D and 271E of the Income tax Act, 1961 – reg.
The issue whether the limitation for imposition of penalty under sections 271D and 271E of the Income tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is determined under section 275(1)(a) or section 275(1)(c) of the Act, has given rise to considerable litigation.
2. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Worldwide Township Projects Ltd., vide its order dated 21.5.14 in ITA No. 232/2014 , considered the issue and observed that , “It is well settled that a penalty under this provision is independent of the assessment. The action inviting imposition of penalty is granting of loans above the prescribed limit otherwise than through banking channels and as such infringement of Section 269SS of the Act is not related to the income that may be assessed or finally adjudicated. In this view Section 2 75(1)(a) of the Act would not be applicable and the provisions of Section 275(1)(c) would be attracted. ” The judgment has been accepted by the Central Board of Direct Taxes.
3. In view of the above, it is a settled position that the period of limitation of penalty proceedings under section 271D and 271E of the Act is governed by the provisions of section 275(1)(c) of the Therefore , the limitation period for the imposition of penalty under these provisions would be 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. The limitation period is not dependent on the pendency of appeal against the assessment or other order referred to in section 275(1)(a) of the Act.
4. Accordingly , no appeals may henceforth be filed on this ground by the officers of the Department and appeals already filed , if any, on this issue before various Courts/ Tribunals may not be pressed upon.
5. The above may be brought to the notice of all concerned.
(Sadhana Panwar)
DCIT ( SD)(ITJ),
CBDT, New Delhi.
Assessing Officer had taken a reasonable stand that 25 kg written in WhatsApp chat/text message was 25 lakh - ITAT…
Shareholders are only owners of the shares of the company therefore, income from properties earned by the company cannot be…
When approval for reassessment was granted by unauthorised authority, such jurisdictional error cannot be shielded by the law of limitation…
ITAT on presumption of bogus purchases ought to have remanded case to AO to reconsider the whole matter instead of…
Where proceedings u/s 153C are barred by limitation, AO can not reopen the case invoking section 148 and 148A of…
Corporate guarantees executed by the corporate debtor constitute “financial debt” under IBC and banks to be recognized as financial creditors…