SH MAKHAN SINGH MUKH SEWADAR,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMRITSAR.

ITA 40/ASR/2016Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 February 2019AY 2009-106 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was not barred by time as the limitation period is governed by Section 275(1)(a) when the assessment order is under appeal. The disputed turnover was fundamental to the penalty levy, making the quantum proceedings relevant.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to get his accounts audited as required under Section 44AB due to disputed gross receipts. Penalty proceedings were initiated, and the Assessing Officer kept them in abeyance pending the appeal on the quantum of receipts.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty order under Section 271B is barred by limitation, and if Section 275(1)(a) or 275(1)(c) applies to the time limitation for imposing the penalty.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 44AB,Section 271B,Section 275(1)(a),Section 275(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR

Before: SH. SANJAY ARORA & SH. N. K. CHOUDHRY

Hearing: 07.02.2019Pronounced: 27.02.2019

Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the Assessee arising out of the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Amritsar ‘(CIT(A)’ for short) dated 03.11.2015, dismissing the assessee’s appeal contesting the levy of penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) for Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2009-10 vide order dated 04/3/2014. 2. The short issue arising in the instant appeal; the ld. counsel for the assessee, Sh. Padam Bahl, not pressing Grounds 1 and 3 of the appeal, is if the impugned penalty order is barred by time and, therefore, non-est in law.

2 Makhan Singh, Mukh Sewadar v. ITO

3.

The brief facts of the cas

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 44AB

All 2,486 judgments and leading authorities on Section 44AB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →