Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 504 - AT - Income TaxLevy of penalty u/s 271B - violation to get his accounts audited u/s 44AB - Bar of limitation for imposing penalties - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the quantum of turnover is fundamental to the levy of penalty. This is as the turnover, a subject matter of dispute in the quantum proceedings, is a given as far as the penalty proceedings are concerned, so that it ought not to, on facts and common principles, be proceeded with without first resolving the same. The legislative intent must be the foundation of any interpretative exercise CIT v. Baby Marine Export [2007 (3) TMI 206 - SUPREME COURT]. The word ‘relevant’ in section 275(1)(a) would, in our view, imply an order which becomes relevant on account of the issue under appeal in quantum proceedings being relevant for the purpose of levy of penalty under Chapter XXI of the Act. The other decisions mentioned in the written submissions, though not relied upon or referred to during hearing, have also been though perused. The decision in Subodh Kumar Bhargava v. CIT [2008 (11) TMI 45 - HIGH COURT DELHI] is on the meaning of the words ‘whichever period expires later’, which has no bearing or is not relevant in the present case; the penalty being admittedly in time w.r.t. s. 275(1)(a). Again, there is no dispute that the time limitation is mandatory, as held in CIT v. Chhajer Packaging & Plastics (P.) Ltd. [2007 (9) TMI 213 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] that being the very premise of the instant appeal. The impugned penalty order is not barred by time. The assessee has not made out any case on the merits of the levy of penalty; the turnover/gross receipt under question having been held in the appellate proceedings to be of the assessee. - Decided against assessee.
|