DR. PANKAJ KHULLAR,SOLAN vs. ITO, W-2, SHIMLA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1488/CHANDI/2019Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 October 2020AY 2008-093 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 275 of the Act. Therefore, the penalty order was set aside as being barred by limitation.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against a penalty order imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty proceedings were initiated during the assessment proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty order was passed within the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 275 of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 275

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

आदेश/Order

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

1.

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 30.08.2019 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Amritsar.

2.

The assessee in this appeal has agitated the levy of penalty of Rs. 33,218/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). attention to the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer which is dated 23.12.2010. The Ld. counsel has further invited our attention to the impugned order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, wherein, it has been specifically mentioned that a show cause notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 28.2.2013 fixing the case for hearing on 7.3.2013. The Ld. Counsel has further invited our attention to the relevant provisions of section 275 of the Act, which reads as under:-

Bar of limitation for imposing penalties. “Section 275 (1) No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be 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, are completed, or six months from the end of the month in which action for imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever period expires later.”

The Ld. Counsel has further invited our attention to the contents of the penalty order, wherein, it has been specifically mentioned by the Assessing Officer that the penalty proceedings were initiated during the assessment proceedings itself. In view of this, the penalty order which is otherwise undated but certainly has been passed after 8.3.2013, though a number and date i.e. 21.3.2013 has been mentioned separately on copy of the order, is beyond the period of

4.

The Ld. DR also could not rebut the contention of the assessee that the Penalty Order was passed beyond limitation period as prescribed u/s 275 of the Act.

In view of this, the penalty order is bad being barred by limitation, and the same is accordingly set aside.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed.

Order pronounced on 21.10.2020.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →