Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Kanpur Versus M/s. K.M. Sugar Mills Ltd.

2015 (12) TMI 1080 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

Penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) - period of limitation - Held that:- The period of limitation prescribed under Section 275 of the Act is apparently clear, namely, that the order of penalty must be passed within six months from the end of the month in which the appellate order is received. The said order of the Tribunal was received by the Commissioner of Income Tax on 28.06.1999. Six months would expire on 31.12.1999. The period of limitation cannot be extended merely because an application under Sectio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 - Dated:- 16-12-2015 - Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala And Hon'ble Vinod Kumar Misra, JJ. For the Appellant : R. K. Upadhyaya, B .....

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 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 aggrie .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed in 83 ITD 130, ignoring the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hind Wire Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in 212 ITR 242?" After hearing Sri Ashok 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( .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

peal to the Appellate Tribunal under section 253, 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 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nd of the financial year in which the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, whichever is later. (b) in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject matter of revision under section 263 or section 264, after the expiry of six months from the end of the month in which such order of revision is passed; (c) in any other case, after the expiry of the financial year in w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 order was received by the Commissioner of Income Tax on 28.06.1999 and, consequently, the penalty order was required to be passed on or before 31.12.1999. 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 bar .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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