9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 387X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hort, "Tribunal"] dated 17.01.2023. 4. The broad facts, which are required to be noticed in order to adjudicate the instant appeal, are the following: 4.1 On 30.10.2004, the respondent/assessee had filed its return of income (ROI), declaring a loss amounting to Rs. 439,67,64,096/-. 4.2 The respondent/assessee's case was selected for scrutiny, and ultimately, an order dated 17.12.2008 was passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, "Act"]. 4.3 The Assessing Officer (AO) scaled down the loss declared by the respondent/assessee and thus, pegged it at Rs. 383,96,56,832/-. 5. It is relevant to note that in the return, the respondent/assessee had suo motu sought disallowance of expenses incurred towards certain transac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he ratio of the said decision is that penalty ought to be levied within a reasonable timeframe. This attains criticality, as Section 275(1)(c) of the Act does not fix a date for the commencement of the period of limitation. This legislative gap in the provision works to the disadvantage of the assessee, as often, the AO takes his own sweet time in making a proposal for the initiation of penalty proceedings. 9.1 In this case, as noticed above, more than 11 years have passed since the time the assessment order was passed, and if the date of filing of the return is taken into account, there is a yawning 14 years of time gap. 10. Mr Puneet Rai, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue, however, says that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which the proceedings, in the course of which action for imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed, or within one year from the end of the financial year in which the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, whichever is later; (b) in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject matter of revision under section 263 or section 264, after the expiry of six months from the end of the month in which such order of revision is passed; (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, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This rationale ties in with our view, as noted hereinabove, that penalty proceedings should be initiated within a reasonable period. 16. We are, thus, not in agreement with the submission made by Mr Rai. 17. Accordingly, the appeal is closed, since no substantial question of law arises for consideration. ---------------------- Notes: 1. "...17.2 It is apparent, that while a timeframe has been provided for the conclusion of penalty proceedings once initiated, there is no indication, as to when the period of six months ought to commence. In other words, can initiation of penalty proceeding be left to the whims and fancies of the revenue or it should be hitched to the dicta of "reasonable period" adopted by Courts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
