New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (10) TMI 1281 - DELHI HIGH COURT

2015 (10) TMI 1281 - DELHI HIGH COURT - [2015] 378 ITR 614 (Del) - Penalty u/s 271-E - violation of the provisions of Section 269T - CIT(A) quashed penalty proceedings - Held that:- In the present case, at the level of the AO, the quantum proceedings was completed on 28th December 2007. Going by this date, the penalty order could not have been passed later than 31st March 2008. The second possible date is expiry of six months from the month in which the penalty proceedings were initiated. With t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ection 271-E to the Additional CIT. For some reason, the Additional CIT did not issue a show cause notice to the Assessee under Section 271-E (1) till 20th March 2012. There is no explanation whatsoever for the delay of nearly five years after the assessment order in the Additional CIT issuing notice under Section 271-E of the Act. The Additional CIT ought to have been conscious of the limitation under Section 275 (1) (c), i.e., that no order of penalty could have been passed under Section 271-E .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Vibhu Bakhru, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Senior standing counsel with Mr. Raghvendra K. Singh, Junior standing counsel. For the Respondent : Ms. Poonam Ahuja with Mr. Rohit Kumar Gupta, Advocates. ORDER 1. This appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Act ) is directed against the impugned order dated 27th March 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) in ITA No. 5443/Del/13 for the Assessment Year ( AY ) 2005-06. 2. By the impugned .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

(c) and 271-E of the Act. Admittedly, under Section 271-E (2) of the Act, any penalty under Section 271-E (1) can only be imposed by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax [ Joint CIT ]. Consequently, the AO referred the matter to the Additional CIT. 4. A perusal of the order dated 20th March 2012 of the Additional CIT shows that a show-cause notice initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271-E was issued to the Assessee on 12th March 2012 requiring it to explain as to why penalty should not .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

only been passed on or before 30th June 2008 and therefore, the penalty order passed on 20th March 2012 was barred by limitation. 6. The ITAT has, in the impugned order dated 27th March 2015, affirmed the above order of the CIT (A) by referring to the decision of this Court in CIT v. Worldwide Township Projects Limited (2014) 269 CTR 444. The ITAT has observed that the date on which the CIT (A) had passed the order in the quantum proceedings had no relevance as it did not have any bearing on the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on 12th March 2012, the order of the Additional CIT passed on 20th March, 2012 was within limitation. 8. We are unable to agree with the above submission of learned Standing counsel for the Revenue. Section 275 (1) (c) reads as under: 275. (1) No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be passed (a).... (b)..... (c) in any other case, after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated, are com .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ing by this date, the penalty order could not have been passed later than 31st March 2008. The second possible date is expiry of six months from the month in which the penalty proceedings were initiated. With the AO having initiated the penalty proceedings in December 2007, the last date by which the penalty order could have been passed is 30th June 2008. The later of the two dates is 30th June 2008. 10. Considering that the subject matter of the quantum proceedings was the non-compliance with S .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ia Bros. (2007) 291 ITR 244(Raj) in the following terms: "The expression other relevant thing used in s. 275(1)(a) and cl. (b) of Sub-s. (1) of S. 275 is significantly missing from cl. (c) of s. 275(1) to make out this distinction very clear. We are, therefore, of the opinion that since penalty proceedings for default in not having transactions through the bank as required under ss. 269SS and 269T are not related to the assessment proceeding but are independent of it, therefore, the complet .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

some proceedings such default is noticed, though the final fact finding in this proceeding may not have any bearing on the issues relating to establishing default e.g. penalty for not deducting tax at source while making payment to employees, or contractor, or for that matter not making payment through cheque or demand draft where it is so required to be made. Either of the contingencies does not affect the computation of taxable income and levy of correct tax on chargeable income; if cl. (a) wa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version