9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (7) TMI 141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue. Assessment order for the year 1991-92 was passed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on March 25, 1992. Thereafter reassessment proceedings were initiated and completed in terms of an order dated December 30, 1994. In the meanwhile, noticing the failure to get the accounts audited under section 44AB, a notice was issued on June 8, 1993. Penalty was also levied on December 15, 199 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al no audit. The same is noticed by the Tribunal. After noticing, the Tribunal was of the view that penalty could not have been levied, since according to the Tribunal, it was issued 14 months after the completion of the assessment and it is affected by limitation under section 271B of the Act. The said section provides for levy of penalty and the quantum of penalty in terms of the statute. Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erms of section 275(1) of the Act. We are only concerned with section 275(1)(c) of the Act. The same reads as under: "(c) in any other case, 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 action for imposition of penalty is initiated, whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs by way of assessment in terms of section 271B of the Act. Those words are missing in section 275(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, we are of the view that the Tribunal is not justified in deleting the penalty on the ground of limitation. We find substance in the argument of learned counsel for the Revenue. On the facts and circumstances of this case, we deem it proper to answer the question of law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
