Judgment :- (D. Murugesan, J) 1. All these appeals raise the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the penalties under Section 271-B levied for the assessment years 2000-01 to 2003-04 (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the penalty proceedings under Section 271B could be initiated only during the assessment proceedings and the orders of penalty passed by the Assessing Officer were barred by limitation? 2. The assessee company which is engaged in the business of accepting deposits and lending money, filed return of income on 13.11.2000 for the assessment year 2000-01. Likewise, it filed return of income on 30.10.2001 for the assessment year 2001-02, for the assessment year 2002-03 it filed return of income on 29.11.2002 and for the assessment year 2003-04, it filed return of income on 27.11.2003. On the ground that the assessee had not filed audit report as required under Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act and the reasons furnished for non compliance was not convinced, the Assessing Officer levied penalty under Section 271B of the Income Tax Act by his assessment orders dated 26.9.2008 in respect of all the four years. Those assessment orders were questioned before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the same were dismissed by following the judgment of the Gawahati High Court reported in (2008) 297 ITR 383 (Khuda Wood Products (P) Ltd., v. CIT) on the ground that penalty under Section 271-B is a mandatory provision. On appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the Tribunal found that penalty proceedings having been initiated long after the completion of the assessment, penalty cannot be sustained. For the said finding, the Tribunal relied upon a judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench reported in 54 TTJ (Ctk) 644 (Sibonarayan Patro & Bros). 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 4. Section 275 of the Income Tax Act contemplates certain contingencies wherein no order imposing a penalty under Chapter XXI of the Act shall be passed. For the said finding, the Tribunal relied upon a judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench reported in 54 TTJ (Ctk) 644 (Sibonarayan Patro & Bros). 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 4. Section 275 of the Income Tax Act contemplates certain contingencies wherein no order imposing a penalty under Chapter XXI of the Act shall be passed. Section 275 (1) (c) of the Act makes the provision clear that 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 contemplated, or six months from the end of the month in which action for imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever period expires later, no action for penalty can be initiated. 5. In the given case, penalty proceedings for the assessment year 2000-01 was initiated after the period of more than four and half years after the completion of assessment. Likewise, for the assessment year 2001-02 such proceedings were initiated after more than three and half years, for the assessment year 2002-03 after more than two and half years and for the assessment year 2004-05 after a period of one and half years. This being the factual position which are not disputed, in the wake of specific provisions, no penalty can be imposed. Therefore we find no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, both the questions of law raised in these appeals are answered against the revenue and the appeals are dismissed. Consequently, the connected Mps are closed. No costs.