Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2019 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 1068 - HC - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1) (c) - bar of limitation for imposing penalties - service to CIT (Judicial) - HELD THAT:- If an officer of the Department is allowed to choose a date on which a copy of the order which has to be given effect to or acted upon is sent to the officer concerned, it will defeat the very purpose for which the legislature has stipulated definite time limits in various provisions of the Act for the authorities to perform their statutory tasks in a time bound manner. In other words, the mandatory period of limitation u/s 275 (1) (a) cannot be sought to be defeated by delaying the dispatch of the relevant order of the ITAT to the concerned ‘jurisdictional’ CIT. What is relevant is when the CIT (Judicial) representing the Department before the ITAT received the order, which in any event is generally made available in the public domain soon after the order is pronounced. This is purport of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in CIT v. Odeon Builders Private Limited (FB) [2017 (3) TMI 1266 - DELHI HIGH COURT] , the ratio decidendi of which will apply to the case on hand as well since the language of Section 260 A (1) and Section 275 (1) (a) is identical. The impugned orders of penalty dated 26th April 2018 were issued far beyond the six-month period of limitation in terms of Section 275 (1) (a) of the Act and were, therefore, invalid. On the date that the said orders were issued, i.e. 26th April, 2018 they were without jurisdiction. Maintainability of writ petitions - HELD THAT:- This Court negatives the objection of the Respondents to the maintainability of the present writ petitions. In CIT v. Chhabil Das Agrawal [2013 (8) TMI 458 - SUPREME COURT], the Supreme Court took note of the fact that normally the existence of an alternative remedy should discourage writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution being entertained. However, as explained by the Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks [1998 (10) TMI 510 - SUPREME COURT] there are exceptions to this rule one of which is that the order under challenge is itself without jurisdiction. In the present case the impugned orders are, for the reasons explained, clearly without jurisdiction. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|