9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1080X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion claimed by the assessee on Gas Cylinders. The Assessing Officer also disallowed Rs. 5,23,674/- on account of truck hire charges and, consequently, initiated proceedings under Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act for concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The said additions were subsequently affirmed by the Tribunal by its order dated 28.04.1999. Eventually, this order of the Tribunal was received by the Commissioner of Income Tax on 28.06.1999. The penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was passed by the Assessing Officer on 31.01.2002. The assessee, being aggrieved, filed an appeal, which was allowed by the Ist Appellate Authority on the ground that the penalty order was passed beyond the period of limitation. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kumar, the learned counsel for the Department and Sri Ashish Bansal, the learned counsel for the assessee, we are of the opinion that the question of law, as formulated above, requires to be modified as under: "Whether the Assessing Officer was justified in passing the penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on 31.01.2002, which was beyond the period of limitation as per Section 275 of the Act?" Section 275 of the Act provides a bar of limitation for imposing penalty. The relevant portion of Section 275 of the Act is extracted hereunder: "275(1) No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be passed -- (a) in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject matter of an appeal to the Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) 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 completed, or six months from the end of the month in which action for imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever period expires later." From a perusal of the aforesaid, it is apparently clear that the order of penalty is required to be passed within the end of the financial year from the date when the assessment order or the appellate order is received by the competent authority or within six months from the end of the month in which action for imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever period expires later. In the instant case, admittedly, the Tribunal's orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee. The Department cannot take advantage of the filing of the application by the assessee. There was no embargo upon the Assessing Officer in not completing the penalty proceedings within the period of limitation. The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the Department in the cases of Hind Wire Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 212 ITR 639 (SC) and Henri Isidore Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 240 ITR 247 (Mad) have no application in the present case. Consequently, for the reasons stated aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the appeal and deleting the order of penalty holding it as barred by limitation. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. The question of law, as refer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
