TMI Blog2009 (2) TMI 886X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - No reply from appellant - another notice was issued proposing penalty for attempted evasion of tax for two years - Even though the adjudicating authority is bound to complete adjudication pursuant to search u/s 67 within one year from the date of detection of offence, appellant did not raise any objection of time bar even after receipt of two notices HELD THAT:- In this case we are told that the records were verified on 19.7.2007. However, it is not known whether the process of evaluation was carried out then or later. Counsel for the appellants contended that proceeding is time barred even with reference to date of verification of accounts which was on 19.7.2007. The verification of accounts need not be the date of detection of off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oposing penalty. So much so, appellant can raise the objection only in appeal and ld Single Judge rightly held so. We, therefore, dismiss the Writ Appeal leaving freedom to the appellant to verify the records and raise limitation as a ground, which appellate authority will consider with reference to the records and in the light of the meaning assigned to the Section. Appellant is granted two weeks time from date of receipt of this judgment to file appeal, if it is not already filed. - C.N.Ramachandran Nair And K.Surendra Mohan, JJ. For Petitioner :Sri.Arikkat Vijayan Menon For Respondent : No Appearance JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, The appeal is filed against judgment of the learned Single Judge whereunder the Si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d so much so, the penalty order cannot be challenged on the ground of limitation. After noting this, the learned Single Judge disposed of the W.P.(C) leaving freedom to the appellant to raise objection on limitation also in the statutory appeal which the appellant can file. It is against this judgment, the appellant has filed the Writ Appeal. We have heard counsel for the appellant and Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. Counsel for the appellants has relied on decision of the Supreme Court in C.I.T. V. ORIENTAL RUBBER WORKS (1984) 145 ITR 477 and contended that unless the proceedings for extension of time is communicated to the appellant, such order is invalid and consequently the penalty order issued under Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... himself registered; or ......... (i) has failed to comply with all or any of the terms of any notice or summons issued to him by or under the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder; or ......... (l) has abetted or induced in any manner another person to make and deliver any return or an account or a statement or declaration under this Act or rules made thereunder, which is false and which he either knows to be false or does not believe to be true, such authority may direct that such person shall pay, by way of penalty, an amount not exceeding twice the amount of tax or other amount evaded or sought to be evades where it is practicable to quantify the evasion or an amount not exceeding Ten thousand rupees in any other cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1) of the Act. The Section does not mention as to within what time the officer should verify the records to find out whether person searched has committed any offence or not. Since no limitation is provided for verifying this, the officer is bound to do it within a reasonable time from the date of search. In this case we are told that the records were verified on 19.7.2007. However, it is not known whether the process of evaluation was carried out then or later. In any case we are of the view that the date of detection of offence is the date from which limitation of one year runs under proviso to Section 67(1). So much so, the appellant cannot contend that limitation has to be reckoned from the date of search. Counsel for the appellants co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the validity of the penalty order itself. This is a matter which requires to be examined by the appellate authority with reference to records. However, we do not think any adjudication proceedings is contemplated under the Act requiring notice to be issued to the dealer or even issuing a communication extending the time. If the dealer raises objection to the penalty notice on ground of limitation, then the Assessing Officer is bound to communicate the order of the Deputy Commissioner and thereafter only he gets jurisdiction to continue the proceedings against the assessee. However, in this case appellant has not raised the objection of limitation when notice was served proposing penalty. So much so, appellant can raise the objection only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
