TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... states at the bar that he does not wish to press those grievances. We must, therefore, confine ourselves to the issue regarding the order being barred by limitation of time. 3. The material facts are like this. On 20th July, 2005, the assessee was imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,82,560 under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The penalty order stated that the penalty was for the asst. yr. 1998-99. On 6th Sept., 2005, however, the AO issued a rectification order under s. 154 r/w s. 271(1)(c) stating that the assessment year was wrongly mentioned as 1998-99 and it was really 1997-98. Aggrieved, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without any success. The CIT(A) upheld the action of the AO, and further observed that in view of the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t., 2005, i.e. the date on which rectification order is passed, is required to be taken as the date of the penalty order, and that date being outside the time-limit available to the AO, under s. 275(1)(a), for passing the order, the penalty should be treated as time barred. We are thus urged to set aside the impugned order as time barred. The very foundation of this complex web of arguments rests on the proposition that it is the date of the rectification order which should be treated as the date of the order which is sought to be rectified, and for the purposes of computing time-limits set out under s. 275(1)(a). 6. In our humble understanding, however, the proposition so advanced by the learned counsel, is fallacious. 7. Their Lordshi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and not pick out words or sentences from the judgment, divorced from the context of questions under consideration by this Court, to support their reasoning." 8. The reliance placed by the learned counsel on the observations made by the Hon'ble Madras High Court, in our considered view, is not incorrect. The question before the Hon'ble Madras High Court was different, the observations made in an altogether different context, and the these observations cannot be pressed into service to decide the issue before us. In our considered view, once a penalty order is passed within the time-limit set out under s. 275(1)(a), it cannot be held to be time barred just because a rectification order in respect thereof is passed outside the said time-limi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
