9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 369X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 's representation for initiation of penalty imposed under Section 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short "Act"]. 2. Besides this, challenge is also laid to the show-cause notice [in short "SCN"] issued on 09.11.2017 and 27.06.2018. 3. As would be evident, the second SCN i.e., issued on 27.06.2018 had been issued after the impugned order was passed, whereby, as noticed above, the petitioner's representation was rejected. 4. It is relevant to note, that this is the second round of litigation by the petitioner. In the first round, the petitioner had approached this Court by way of a writ action i.e., W.P.(C) 883/2018. The grievance articulated in the writ petition was that the respondent/revenue has wrongly assumed jurisdiction in the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8-09, the petitioner, while filing its return, claimed the very same expense which it had added back as deduction, as the said amount had actually been expended. Thus, Rs.84,62,03,987/-, which had been added back in AY 2007-08 was claimed as deduction in AY 2008-09. The return for AY 2008-09 was filed on 30.09.2008. The petitioner, as per the record, declared in this AY, a loss amounting to Rs.21,00,37,579/-. 8. The record shows, that the petitioner's return for AY 2007-08 was subjected to scrutiny, and an assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act was framed on 28.10.2011. The Assessing Officer (AO) quantified the petitioner's total taxable income as Rs.102,06,71,340/-. 8.1 The record also discloses, that nearly four years later, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hearing. Accordingly, it was communicated to the petitioner, that the matter concerning the aforementioned SCN would be heard on 02.02.2018. It is this, which impelled the petitioner to approach the Court by way of a writ action, in the very first instance. 11. As noticed above, a writ petition [i.e., W.P.(C) 883/2018] was filed, wherein, inter alia, a prayer had been made to quash the SCN dated 09.11.2017. This writ petition was instituted on 29.01.2018. 11.1 The Court, as observed hereinabove, disposed of the writ petition on 09.05.2018. This order was clarified, at the behest of the petitioner, on 23.05.2018. This led to the respondent/revenue passing the impugned order dated 14.06.2018. The impugned order was followed by a second SCN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nable period" for commencing proceedings when there is no such indication given in statute, Mr Jolly has relied upon the following judgments: (i) Bharti Airtel Ltd. vs. Union of India, (2016) 76 taxmann.com 256 (Del); and (ii) Judgment dated 17.11.2022 passed in a bunch of matters, the lead being ITA 577/2018, titled: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-7 vs. Rishikesh Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. 14. Mr Jolly also submits, that if the stand taken by the respondent/revenue is accepted, which is that the period for completion of proceedings under Section 271C of the Act will only commence when the SCN under Section 274 of the Act is issued, it will lead to a situation where the proceedings could be delayed endlessly, causing grave prejudice to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 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, whichever period expires later..." [Emphasis is ours] 17. As would be evident, the aforementioned provision has two limbs. The first limb concerns fixation of period of limitation when penalty is sought to be imposed as fallout of action taken in another proceeding. On the other hand, the second limb of clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 275 of the Act fixes the period of limitation, where initiation of action of imposition of penalty is taken on a stand-alone basis i.e., not as a consequence of action taken in another proceeding. 17.1 For the second limb, the legisl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reasonable opportunity of being heard. 21. In this case, as noted hereinabove by us while narrating the facts, the initial return qua the AY in issue i.e., AY 2007-08 was filed on 31.03.2007, and the revised return was filed on 31.03.2009. The scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3), concerning AY 2007-08, was framed on 28.10.2011. Despite the fact that the issue concerning limitation got flagged as far back as on 09.09.2013, and then again in an internal communication dated 11.07.2014, no steps were taken for the issuance of a SCN. The SCN was issued only on 09.11.2017. 22. In our view, the delay in issuing the impugned SCN dated 09.11.2017 was inexcusable. There is no explanation, whatsoever, available on the record, as to why the SCN ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
