TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 514X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of penalty beyond the expiry of a financial year in which a proceeding which has led to the penalty proceeding has been completed or within six months from the end of the month in which a penalty proceeding has been initiated, whichever expires later. A plain reading of various circumstances discussed u/s 275 of ‘the Act’ would confirm that a plea of a pending proceeding u/s 154, does not suffice for explaining a delay in passing the final order because this situation does not find mention in either of the situations discussed. The entire proceedings initiated for imposition of penalty under Section 271E for alleged violation of Section 269(T) is barred by limitation as prescribed u/s 275(1)(c) - Decided in favour of assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which the notice was issued or the order has been passed. What Ms. Archana Sinha, learned counsel for the Department, canvasses before this court is that it is the petitioner who engaged the Department in different proceedings before different forums, which led to the delay in passing the final order under Section 271E of the Act , however all these submissions are oral and are not supported from the records. We do note that any order passed under Section 271E of the Act is appealable, but since Mr. Rastogi questioned the very jurisdiction of the statutory authority to pass such order after expiry of the period of limitation that we have proceeded to give a hearing to the issue so raised waiving of the objection on the plea of altern ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resent in Section 275(1)(c) which would govern the present contest. A plain reading of the provisions would confirm that the statutory authority concerned, is restrained from passing any order of penalty beyond the expiry of a financial year in which a proceeding which has led to the penalty proceeding has been completed or within six months from the end of the month in which a penalty proceeding has been initiated, whichever expires later. The order of penalty dated 21.09.2016 placed on record vide Annexure-1 series to the Interlocutory Application arises from an order passed in purported exercise of power vested in the statutory authority under Section 143(3)/153(A) of the Act on 31.03.2013 and which is not in dispute. It is also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yond the period of six months, since the order on rectification was passed i.e. 26.11.2015. Apart from what we have discussed above, a plain reading of various circumstances discussed under Section 275 of the Act would confirm that a plea of a pending proceeding under Section 154, does not suffice for explaining a delay in passing the final order because this situation does not find mention in either of the situations discussed. Mr. Rastogi, learned counsel has made reference to a judgment of the Delhi High Court reported in (2017) 394 ITR 312 (Del) (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mahesh Wood Products Pvt. Ltd.) with particular reference to the opinion recorded at paragraph 5 10 and in our opinion the conclusion drawn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
