Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2017 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 321 - DELHI HIGH COURTInitiation of the penalty proceedings u/s 158BFA - whether the initiation of the penalty was time barred inasmuch as it was beyond six month’s time from the end of the month in which the order of the ITAT was received by the Commissioner of Income Tax (‘CIT’) (Judicial) and not the “concerned CIT”? - Held that:- The Court finds that the expression “received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner” appearing in Section 158BFA(3)(c) is identical to the expression in Section 260A(1) of the Act which was interpreted by this Court in Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd. (2017 (3) TMI 1266 - DELHI HIGH COURT) as any CIT and not necessarily the 'concerned' CIT. In other words, for the purpose of Section 158BFA(3)(c) of the Act, if the order of the ITAT was received by the CIT (Judicial), the limitation of 6 months within which the penalty order had to be passed would begin to run from that date regardless of the fact that the order of the ITAT was received by the concerned CIT only thereafter. As far as the second submission is concerned, this Court in Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd. (supra) declared the law as it always stood. The question of the said decision applying only prospectively does not arise. While it will not result in matters that have attained finality being reopened, it will apply to cases that are pending at various levels in the hierarchy of authorities. - Decided against revenue
|