TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1080X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee. 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, (1995 (1) TMI 2 - SUPREME Court) and Henri Isidore Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, [1997 (10) TMI 16 - MADRAS High Court] have no application in the present case. Consequently 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 referred, is answered in favour of the assessee - Income Tax Appeal No. - 59 of 2006 - - - Da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 260A of the Act, which was admitted on the following substantial question of law: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in cancelling the penalty amounting to ₹ 30,96,548/- imposed by the Assessing Officer vide order u/s 271 (1) (c) dated 31.01.2002, without properly appreciating the facts of the case? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in cancelling the penalty amounting to ₹ 30,96,548/- imposed by the Assessing Officer, without appreciating the fact that the assessee has concealed particulars of income of ₹ 39,44,650/- on account of depreciatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceedings, 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 the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Appellate Tribunal is received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, whichever period expires later: Provided that in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject-matter of an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 246 or section 246A, and the Commissioner (Appeals) passes the order on or after the 1st day of June, 2003 disposing of such appeal, an order imposing penalty shall be passed before the expiry of the financial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 999. In the instant case, the penalty order was passed on 31.01.2002 much after the expiry of the period of limitation and, consequently, the order of penalty was barred by limitation. It was urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that after passing of the order of the Tribunal, a rectification application under Section 254 of the Act was filed by the assessee before the Tribunal, which was dismissed by the Tribunal on 30.04.2001 under Section 254 of the Act, which was received by the Commissioner of Income Tax on 16.07.2001 and, therefore, applying the provision of Section 275(1)(c) of the Act the period of limitation was extended till 31.03.2002 and, before the expiry of this period, the impugned penalty order was passed on 31. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
