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 →

Shri P. Ramesh Kumar Versus The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range, Coimbatore

2017 (6) TMI 136 - ITAT CHENNAI

Levy of penalty u/s.271D - Period of limitation - Held that:- Admittedly, the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court decision in the case of Hissaria Bros. [2006 (7) TMI 163 - RAJASTHAN High Court] wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan has held that once show cause notice is issued by the AO then the time limit would run from that show cause notice. This view has also be confirmed by the Apex Court in [2016 (8) TMI 1044 - SUPREME COURT ] - Penalty Order passed by the Addl. Commissioner of Incom .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

THAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: ITA Nos.3132, 3133, 3134, 3135 & 3136/Mds/2016 are the appeals filed by the assessee against the Order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Salem, in ITA No.258/2009-10 dated 24.10.2016 for the AY 1997-98, ITA No.259/2009-10 dated 24.10.2016 for the AY 1998-99, ITA No.260/2009-10 dated 24.10.2016 for the AY 1999-2000, ITA No.261/2009-10 dated 24.10.2016 for the AY 2001-02 & No.262/2009-10 dated 24.10.2016 for the AY 2002-03 respectively. 2. Mrs. Sumathi Venkatr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f penalty u/s.271D was issued by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Salem on 26.03.2006 for all the assessment years under appeal. It was a submission that consequently under the provisions of Sec.275(i)(c), the limitation for completion of the penalty proceedings was 30.09.2006. It was a submission that however on 26.07.2006 fresh show cause notice was issued by the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range, Coimbatore and the assessee had replied to the same with a lette .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

under sub-section 1 only by the Joint Commissioner and as per the definition clause of 2(28C), Joint Commissioner included the Addl.CIT. It was a submission that the Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Hissaria Bros. reported in 291 ITR 244 has held that if the show cause notice is issued by the AO then the period of six months is to be reckoned from such show cause notice. He placed before us the copy of the decision of the Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Hissaria Bros. rep .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

alty. Sub-s. (1) of s.274 provides for affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee before an order imposing penalty is passed. Though s. 271D vests the jurisdiction of imposing penalty solely in the Jt. CIT, it is silent as regards initiation of the proceedings. The question is, can such initiation of proceedings be made by the AO? The AO is the person, who is likely to come across the cases of concealment or violation of the provisions of law attracting penal provisions. Can t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e Asstt. CIT or Dy. CIT, where the penalty exceeds twenty thousand rupees, except with the prior approval of the Jt. CIT . 13. Prior to introduction of Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, Sub-s. (2) of s. 274 was as follows: (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in cl. (iii) of sub-s. (1) of s. 271, if in a case falling under cl. (c) of that sub-section, the minimum penalty imposable exceeds a sum of rupees one thousand, the ITO shall refer the case to the IAC who shall, for the purpose, have all t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

penalty imposable exceeding a sum of ₹ 1000, the AO could initiate the proceedings by issuing a notice. That question was answered by the Supreme Court in the affirmative. Their Lordships in the case of D.M. Manasvi vs. CIT 1972 CTR (SC) 437: (1972) 86 ITR 557 (SC), held as follows: We are also not impressed by the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that the proceedings for the imposition of penalty were initiated not by the ITO but by the IAC when the matter had been referred to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

fter initiating the proceedings. It would, indeed, be the satisfaction of the ITO in the course of the assessment proceedings regarding the concealment of income which would constitute the basis and foundation of the proceedings for levy of penalty. 15. Applying the views expressed by the apex Court it can be said that in a case falling under s. 271D the AO is not precluded from initiating the proceedings by issuing a notice. 4. It was a submission that the Penalty Order being barred by limitati .....

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