Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (SMC
Before: SH. SANJAY ARORA
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (SMC) BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 650/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2004-05
Jaspal Singh, vs. Income Tax Officer, 45-GF, B-Block, Ranjit Avenue, Ward-5(2), Amritsar Amritsar. [PAN: ABQPS 7190G] (Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : Sh. Padam Bahl (C.A.) Respondent by: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Date of Hearing: 26.02.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 26.02.2019 ORDER Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the Assessee agitating the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Amritsar ('CIT(A)' for short) dated 13.07.2017, dismissing the assessee’s appeal contesting the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) vide order dated 30.08.2016 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2004-05.
At the outset, the assessee counsel, Sh. Bahl, would pray for admission and adjudication of the assesee’s additional ground, being legal, going to the root of the matter, with the relevant facts being on record. The impugned order, it is thereby stated, is non-est in-as-much as the same is barred by time. The penalty was initiated by the Assessing Officer (AO) upon recording his satisfaction for the
2 ITA No. 650/Asr/2017 (AY 2004-05) Jaspal Singh v. ITO same in the assessment order dated 21.12.2011, issuing notice u/s. 274 qua the same on the same date (copy on record). The time limit for the levy of penalty is accordingly covered under section 275(1)(c), i.e., where the relevant assessment or other order is not the subject matter of either appellate or revision proceedings. The time limit accordingly is before 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 (31.3.2012), or six months from the end of the month of the said action (30.6.2012). The penalty levied vide order dated 30.8.2016 is thus non-est. Reliance was placed on the decision in Ahuja Rice and General Mills vs. Dy. CIT [1999] 69 ITD 0329 (Asr). The ld. Departmental Representative (DR) could not show any infirmity in the contentions raised by the ld. AR, Sh. Bahl.
I have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. The relevant facts necessary for deciding the appeal are on record; in fact, admitted. The levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)( b) is for failure to comply with specified notices, being notice u/s 142(1) (dated 05.7.2011) in the instant case. The same, accordingly, has nothing to do with the relevant assessment order being subject to the appellate proceedings, being in fact outstanding before the Appellate Tribunal at present. Further, there is nothing to suggest that the assessment is subject to revision, nor any intention to that effect. The time limit u/s. 275(1)(c) would accordingly apply, whereby the later of the two dates afore-stated, i.e., 30.6.2012, shall hold. The penalty order is dated 30.8.2016, and is accordingly barred by time, and the penalty imposed thereby a nullity in law. As penalty order has been annulled, there is no occasion or even a question of going to the merits of the assessee’s appeal, i.e. as decided by the ld. CIT(A). I decide accordingly.
3 ITA No. 650/Asr/2017 (AY 2004-05) Jaspal Singh v. ITO 4. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on February 26, 2019 Sd/- (Sanjay Arora) Accountant Member Date: 26.02.2019 /GP/Sr. Ps. Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: Sh. Jaspal Singh, 45-GF, B-Block, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar (2) The Respondent: Income Tax Officer,Ward-5(2), Amritsar (3) The CIT(Appeals)-2, Amritsar (4) The CIT concerned (5) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T True Copy By Order