Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 702 - AT - Income TaxPenalty levied u/s 158BFA(2) after the expiry of limitation period - period of limitation relating to the levy of penalty - change of jurisdiction of the concerned CIT / Principal CIT - HELD THAT:- The ITAT vide letter dated 27.1.2016 pointed out this fact to the CIT-I and requested that the copy of the order be sent to the concerned jurisdictional CIT. Thereafter, the orders were sent by the office of the Principal CIT-I to the office of the Principal CIT (Central). It is pertinent to mention here that change of jurisdiction of the concerned CIT / Principal CIT was the internal matter of the Department. No intimation was given to the Tribunal or placed on the file regarding the change of jurisdiction of the Principal CIT. The office of the ITAT Chandigarh sent the orders to the concerned Principal CIT as per the information regarding the jurisdiction available on the file / Form 36. Whether the limitation would start run from the ITAT had sent the order to the Principal CIT with whom the jurisdiction lied as per the record, though was transferred later on to another Principal CIT ? - As decided in ODEON BUILDERS PVT. LTD., GULBARGA ASSOCIATES (P) LTD. [2017 (3) TMI 1266 - DELHI HIGH COURT] once the ITAT sends a copy of an order to the Principal CIT / CIT and even the CIT (Judicial), going by the details as provided to it in the memo of parties and even if, therefore, there is a change concerning the jurisdiction of the CIT, it will not have the effect of postponing the commencing of the period of limitation in terms of section 260A(2)(a) of the Act. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court while further answering the question No. (vii) has held that where there is a common order of the ITAT covering the several appeals, the limitation would begin to run when a certified copy is received first by either the CIT (Judicial) or one of the officers of the Department and not only when the CIT concerned receives it. The issue is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The penalty order in this case has been passed beyond the period of limitation, hence, the same is void ab initio and the same is accordingly set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|