Allowing the petition the Court held that ;The time limit under the second limb was six months from the end of the month in which the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was received. For the assessment year 2011-12 the order under S.143(3) was passed on December 30, 2016. Therefore, the limitation for initiation of penalty proceedings under S. 275(1)(a) was on or before March 31, 2017, in terms of the first limb of the provision. According to the second limb of the provision, though it was six months from the end of the month in which the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was received, in the assessee’s case the proviso to S. 275(1)(a) would be attracted and the period would be one year from the date on which the order was passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The assessees had preferred the appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) on February 1, 2017, and at that point of time, when the penalty notices under S. 271(1)(c) were issued, the appeals were pending. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner had lost out on the limitation aspect with regard to the first limb of S. 275(1)(a) , as the penalty notices had been issued on September 11, 2017 and September 14, 2017, which were after March 31, 2017, which would be the period of limitation for initiating penalty proceedings under S. 275(1)(a) . ( AY. 2011-12 to 2015-16)