Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 444 - AT - Income TaxImposition of penalty u/s 158 BFA (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 - Period of limitation - HC confirmed the addition by reversing the order of ITAT - HELD THAT:- Assessment order under section 158BC(c) read with section 158BD of the Act was passed by the learned Assessing Officer on 10/6/2002; that the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions made by the learned Assessing Officer by order dated 14/11/2002; that the Tribunal reversed the orders of the 1st appellate authority and a deleted the additions made by the learned Assessing Officer by order dated 03/08/2007; that the Hon’ble High Court restored the additions made by the learned Assessing Officer while reversing the order of the Tribunal, by order dated 29/11/2010; and that the impugned penalty order under section 158BFA(2) of the Act was passed by the learned Assessing Officer on 15/5/2011. Facts narrated above are identical to the facts involved in the case of Cellphone Credit [2019 (5) TMI 1500 - ITAT DELHI] and Intel Invofin (supra) wherein the Tribunal while placing reliance on the decision in the case of Aravind Kumar Jain (supra) held that the penalty order that was passed on 19/5/2011 as against the order of the Tribunal on 12/10/2006 was barred by limitation in terms of provisions under section 158BFA(3)(c) of the Act. The penalty levied by the learned Assessing Officer under section 158BFA(2) of the Act cannot be sustained because the assessee does not seem to have any intention to conceal the capital gain further the purpose of taxation and in fact had disclosed such investment in its financial statements and also had filed the return of income, of course with some delay - the levy of penalty is not automatic. Penalty do not sustain and is deleted - appeal of assessee allowed.
|