Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (11) TMI 523 - AT - Income TaxWhether the assessee had moved the competent authority, being the ld. CIT, u/s.273AA in time – Held that:- Revenue did not dispute the filing of the application u/s 273AA by the assessee in time, i.e., on 24.04.2009 - the assessee have moved valid application/s u/s 273AA on 24.04.2009 with the competent authority, i.e., the office of the CIT - as the provision only bars an application after the levy of penalty, the other conditions of the provision, viz. abatement of the proceedings before the Settlement Commission, etc. being apparently and undisputedly satisfied - the assessee had duly informed the AO of the same in-as-much as he cannot plead prejudice if he had not duly communicated the said fact, i.e., of the application/s u/s.273AA having been moved before the competent authority, to the A.O. Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Non-disposal of application u/s 273AA – Held that:- There is no provision in section 275, which grants extended time (for the levy of penalty) where the order passed in the proceedings during the course of which the penalty proceedings had been initiated is being contested before the first or the second appellate authority, for keeping the penalty proceedings in abeyance for want of disposal of an application u/s 273AA, or section 273A for that matter - The two proceedings are independent of each other, and perhaps for the reason that, unlike the outcome of the quantum proceedings, which has a direct bearing on the levy or otherwise of penalty, the proceedings u/s 273A/273AA stand on altogether different footings - the penalty orders cannot be considered as being legally infirm in-as much as the AO was duty bound to have completed the penalty proceedings, validly initiated, within the statutory time period there-for - the provisions of section 273AA and section 271(1)(c) are independent of each other - therefore, the CIT should have proceeded in the matter, i.e., in deciding on the assessee’s application u/s.273AA on merits, unguided and uninfluenced by the fact that the penalty stands already levied – thus, the matter is to be remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration – Decided in favour of assessee.
|