TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 366X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order must have been received by the authorities. The time limit to pass the penalty order in this case was before 31.3.2000, because the date of 29.9.1999 falls within the financial year started from 1.4.1999 and ends on 31.3.2000. Other time limit could be six months from the date of receipt of the order, that has also expired. Even for abundant precaution, we observe that in case on re-verification at the end of the A|O it emerges out that the penalty is within the limitation and there is some communication gap between mentioning of these dates, then, the Revenue will be at liberty to approach the Tribunal to recall this order. Such an application should be filed within the time limit available under the Income Tax Act. With the abo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 38,059/- being capital expenditure incurred on scientific research. This claim was found to be bogus and fraudulent. Hence, penalty proceedings were initiated. The ld.AO after hearing the assessee has imposed penalty of ₹ 40,56,375/-. The last two paragraphs of the penalty order reads as under: Another issue on which proceedings for concealment of income were initiated by the A.O was in respect of excess claim of depreciation on factory building. In the original assessment order, the A.O. found that the excess claim of depreciation was made by the assessee to the extent of ₹ 2,50,000/-. The issue has been discussed at length in para 5 of the assessment order. In appeal this issue was restored back to the file of the A.O and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rticulars Date Original return filed on 30.11.1995 First Revised Return filed by the assessee on 24.01.1996 Survey u/s.133A carried out on 3.01.1997 Second revised return was filed on 29.01.1997 Assessment order u/s.143(3) was passed on 31.3.1997 CIT(A) order was passed on 15.07.1997 Order giving effect to CIT(A) order passed by the AO on 29.09.1999 Penalty order u/s.271(1)(c) was required to be passed by sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or this order should have been passed within six months from the receipt of the order of the CIT(A) by the Commissioner or the Chief Commissioner. This order, according to the ld.counsel for the assessee, must have been received before 29.9.1999, because on this date, effect has been given to the order of the CIT(A) by the AO. In order to buttress the authenticity of these dates, he made reference to the penalty order, where the AO has recorded these dates. 7. On the other hand, the ld.DR contended that at this stage he is not in a position to make categorical statement about these dates. The order of the CIT(A) might have been received in the office of the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner subsequent to these dates. Therefore, sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
