TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 191X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee. - Stay Application No 62 (Ahd.) of 2012 - - - Dated:- 4-1-2013 - D.K. Tyagi And Anil Chaturvedi , JJ. For the Appellant : S.N. Soparkar. For the Respondent : D.K. Singh. ORDER:- PER : D.K. Tyagi This Stay Application has been filed by the assessee for securing stay of penalty proceedings initiated by the CIT(A) u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act pursuant to his appellate order dated 17.07.2012. 2. Brief facts, leading to this stay application are as under:- Assessee company is engaged in manufacturing and trading of electrical lamps, trading of critical locomotives, manufacturing and trading in engineering plastics and related products, erection and commissioning services, export of computer software etc. Assessment u/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led detailed submissions in response to this show cause notice. Alternatively it was contended by the assessee before ld. CIT(A) that since the assessee proposed to file an appeal before the I.T.A.T. on the quantum proceedings (the appeal has since been filed on 4th October, 2012), the penalty should be kept in abeyance till the disposal of appeal by Hon'ble I.T.A.T. Reliance in this regard was placed on the provisions of Section 275(1)(a) of the which provide that where an appeal against the relevant order has been filed before Hon'ble I.T.A.T., the time limit for disposal of penalty proceeding is six months from the end of the month in which the order of the Hon'ble I.T.A.T. is received by the Commissioner/Chief Commissioner. Hence, it wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n be necessary to consider the proceedings under section 271. In the circumstances, no prejudice has been caused to the appellant (i.e. tax authorities) even qua the penalty proceedings. The apprehension that any order in the penalty proceedings may be barred by limitation under section 275(1A), is not well founded. In any event, the apprehension is set at rest by directing that in the event the same being held to be barred by limitation, this appeal shall stand revived automatically and without further orders of this Court." Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Commercial Engineers Body Builders Co. (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India 163 Taxman 218 wherein it was held as under:- " ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dings initiated by ld. CIT(A) may kindly be issued. He, however, did not make any submission regarding the merits of the case. 6. After hearing both the parties, perusing the record and the case laws relied by both the parties we find that in this case penalty proceedings have been initiated by ld. CIT(A) pursuant to enhancement of income made by him vide his order dated 17.07.2012. The appeal against this order has been filed before the Tribunal on 4th October, 2012 which is in fact the first appeal of the assessee against the enhancement of income by ld. CIT(A). As the appellate proceedings are already on, we are not going into the merits of the case. However, it will not be out of place to mention that the contention of the assessee th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
