TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 321X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT”? - Held that:- The Court finds that the expression “received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner” appearing in Section 158BFA(3)(c) is identical to the expression in Section 260A(1) of the Act which was interpreted by this Court in Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd. (2017 (3) TMI 1266 - DELHI HIGH COURT) as any CIT and not necessarily the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Dated:- 20-9-2017 - S. MURALIDHAR PRATHIBA M. SINGH JJ. Appellant Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing Counsel. Respondent Through: Mr. Rohit Kumar Gupta, Advocate with Ms. Shayama Lima Borha, Advocate. O R D E R C.M.No.34509/2017 (delay in filing) 1. For the reasons explained in the application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 017 of this Court in ITA 52/2015 (Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax), and held that since the penalty order was beyond the period of six months after the order of the ITAT was first received by the CIT (Judicial), it was beyond time and, therefore, unsustainable in law. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Revenue that the decision of this Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appearing in Section 158BFA(3)(c) is identical to the expression in Section 260A(1) of the Act which was interpreted by this Court in Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd. (supra) as any CIT and not necessarily the 'concerned' CIT. In other words, for the purpose of Section 158BFA(3)(c) of the Act, if the order of the ITAT was received by the CIT (Judicial), the limitation of 6 months within which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
