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 →

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-03, New Delhi Versus M/s Mahesh Wood Products (P) Ltd.

2016 (5) TMI 1137 - ITAT DELHI

Penalty under Sections 271D and 271E - period of limitation - Held that:- The impugned orders levying the penalties under Sections 271D and 271E of the Act are barred by limitation because the penalty order should have been passed not later than 30.06.2012, however, in the present case, the penalty orders were passed by the ld. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range-2, New Delhi on 15.06.2013 - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA Nos. 6256 & 6257/Del/2013 - Dated:- 24-5-2016 - Sh. N. K. .....

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 Act). 3. During the Course of hearing the ld. Counsel for the assessee raised the issue of limitation under Rule 27 of Income Tax (AT) Rules, 1963. As the Ld. CIT(A) had considered this ground of the assessee and decided the issue against the assessee, we hold that the assessee is entitled to raise this ground on the issue of limitation under Rule 27 of Income Tax (AT)000 Rules. 4. In the present case, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) in paras 4.3 to 4.5 of the impugned orders held as under .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ions, and the order passed u/s 271D / 271E is barred by limitation prescribed therein. Section 275(l)(c) provides that no order imposing a penalty under the chapter shall be passed (i) after the expiry of the Financial Year (FY) in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed, or (ii) six months from the end of the month in which action for imposition of penalty is initiated, which ever period expires later. In the present c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ribed u/s 275(1 )(c). 4.5 In view of the above, this ground of appeal raised by the appellant is contrary to the law in the matter and is, accordingly, dismissed." 5. During the course of hearing the ld. Counsel for the assessee at the very outset stated that this issue is covered by the order dated 08.03.2016 of the ITAT Delhi Bench F , New Delhi in the case of DCIT, Central Circle-03, New Delhi Vs M/s Raj Katha Products P. Ltd. in ITA Nos.5853, 5854, 5855, 5857, 5858, 5859/Del/2013 for 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

rial on record, it is noticed that an identical issue having similar facts has been adjudicated by the ITAT Delhi bench F , New Delhi in the aforesaid referred to case of DCIT, Central Circle-03, New Delhi Vs M/s Raj Katha Products P. Ltd. wherein the relevant findings have been given in paras 3.1 to 3.4 of the order dated 08.03.2016 which read as under: 3.1. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Principal CIT-5 vs. Jkd Capital & Finelase Ltd. judgment dated 13th October, 2015 at p .....

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 for imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever period expires later. 9. In terms of the above provision, there are two distinct periods of limitation for passing a penalty order, and one that expires later will apply. One is the end of the financial year in which the quantum proceedings are completed in the first instance. In the present case, at the level of the AO, the quantum proceeding was completed on 28th December 2007. Going by this date, the penalty order could not have been passed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

onscious of the fact that he did not have the power to issue notice as far as the penalty proceedings under Section 271-E was concerned. He, therefore, referred the matter concerning penalty proceedings under Section 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 issu .....

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