CMV EDUCATION SOCIETY,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, DELHI

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, [in short, the “CIT(A)”], New Delhi’s order dated 19.07.2023 passed in case no. CIT(A), Delhi-35/10015/2019-20, involving proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive grievance canvassed in the instant appeal challenging both the learned lower authorities’ action levying section 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs.7,83,81,920/-; we note that there arises the first and foremost issue of validity thereof itself as the Assessing Officer had passed his penalty order on 28.02.2019.

There is hardly any dispute between the parties that the impugned penalty proceedings emanate from the Assessing Officer’s section 153C r.w.s. 144 assessment framed on 23rd March, 2015 upheld in the CIT(A)’s order dated 31st March, 2017 and confirmed in the tribunal’s quantum order dated 29th June, 2018.

Now comes the statutory limitation period in such an instance wherein the assessee concerned availed its appellate remedies against the assessment order under the provision of the Act. There could be hardly any dispute that section 275(1)(a) prescribes such a limitation as “after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed, or six months from the end of the month in which the order of the……………………………………., the appellate tribunal is received by the ……………………; whichever

We make it clear that hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s Full Bench decision in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Odeon Builders (P.) Ltd. [2017] 80 taxmann.com 180 (Delhi) has already settled the issue that the date of service of the tribunal’s order in such an instance could very well be taken from the date of pronouncement itself which comes to 29th June, 2018 as against the Assessing Officer having passed his penalty order on 28th February, 2019 i.e. beyond the prescribed period of six months from the end of the month (supra).

This being the clinching factual backdrop, we hereby reject the Revenue’s vehement contentions supporting the Assessing Officer’s above penalty orders and conclude that the same is barred by the statutory limitation hereinabove. It is therefore held as non- est in the eyes of law and quashed accordingly. All other pleadings on merits between the parties stand rendered academic.