TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 20X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an take advantage of his own wrong - since the quantum appeal was pending before the Tribunal, the limitation period for imposing penalty had not yet expired - 938 of 2008(O&M) - - - Dated:- 14-10-2009 - ADARSH KUMAR GOEL and GURDEV SINGH JJ. Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate for the respondents. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. - The assessee has preferred this appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act') against the order dated 18.8.2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh 'A' Bench in M.A No.158/Chd/2007 arising out of its own order dated 9.4.2007 in ITA No.766/Chd/2007, for the assessm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal held as under:- "We have considered the submissions. The learned CIT(A) has dealt with the issue in para 4 of its order wherein the assessee submitted that it could not file the appeal before the Tribunal against the order dated 25.2.1998 in time and belated appeal was filed on 24.8.1998 which was late by 108 days. The delay was declined to be condoned by the Tribunal vide order dated 26.6.2003. The relevant assessment folder has been considered by the learned CIT(A). The Assessing Officer issued the notice dated 8.7.1998 as to why the penalty should not be imposed under section 271(1)(c) to which the assessee vide its letter dated 16.7.1998 requested the Assessing Officer to drop the penalty proceedings till the finalization of appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was dated 22.1.1998, limitation for passing order of penalty commenced from the receipt of the said order. The Tribunal wrongly held that the limitation will commence from the date of receipt of order of the Tribunal as the appeal filed before the Tribunal was beyond limitation and delay was not condoned. In these circumstances, the filing of appeal and pendency thereof had to be ignored. Reliance has been placed on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Computwel (supra). 5. Learned counsel for the revenue opposes this submission and points out that the judgment relied upon is distinguishable, the same being in relation to proceedings under the Scheme known as 'Kar Vivad Samadhan', introduced by Finance Act No.2 of 1998. As per the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
