Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
$~29&31 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ITA 822/2017 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-14 ..... Through: Mr.Zoheb Hossain, Sr.Standmg Counsel. Versus KAMALJEETKHOSLA ..^.Respondent Through; Mr.Rohit Kumar Gupta, Advocate with Ms.Shayama Lima Borha, Advocate. ^ ITA 824/2017 PR, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 14 ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Zoheb Hossam, Sr.Standmg Counsel. Versus KAMALJEETKHOSLA Through; Mr.Rohit Kumar Gupta, Advocate with Ms.Shayama Lima Borha, Advocate. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH ORDER 20.09.2017 r.M.No.3450Q/^ni7 (delayin filing) 1. For the reasons explained in the application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application is disposed of. TTAs No.822/2017 & 824/2017 2. These two appeals are by the Revenue against an order dated 12 April, 2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (TTAT') in ITA No.28/Del/2010 and C.O.No.214/Del/2010 for the block period April, ITA 822/2017&ITA 824/2017 Page1of3 + Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified
1996 to 9^^" May, 2002. 3The short question that arises for consideration is whether the initiation of the penalty proceedings by the Assessing Officer ('AO') in terms ofSection 158BFA (3)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') was time barred inasmuch as it was beyond six month's time from the end of the month m which the order of the ITAT was received by the Commissioner of Income Tax ('CIT') (Judicial) and not the "concerned CIT'?. 4. The ITAT has in the impugned order relied on the decision dated 24 March, 2017 of this Court in ITA 52/2015 {Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Principal Commissioner ofIncome Tax), and held that since the penalty order was beyond the period of six months after the order ofthe ITAT was first received by the CIT (Judicial), it was beyond time and, therefore, unsustainable in law. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Revenue that the decision of this Court in Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was in the context of an appeal under Section 260A of the Act and, therefore, will not ipso facto apply to Section 158BFA(3)(c) although the expression used in both provisions is the same. Secondly, he submits that in the present case at the time the AO initiated the penalty proceedings, the decision in Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd. (supra) had not been pronounced and, therefore, the said decision of this Court should be held to be prospective, that is, applicable only to those cases where the proceedings under Section 158 BFA (3) were initiated thereafter. ITA 822/2017&ITA 824/2017 ^
As far as the first submission is concerned, tlie Court finds that the expression "received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner" appearmg m Section 158BFA(3)(c) is identical to the expression in Section 260A(1) of the Act which was interpreted by this Court in Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd. (supra) as any CIT and not necessarily the 'concerned' CIT. In other words, for the purpose ofSection 158BFA(3)(c) ofthe Act, ifthe order ofthe ITAT was received by the CIT (Judicial), the limitation of6months withm which the penalty order had to be passed would begin to run from that date regardless of the fact that the order of the ITAT was received by the concernedCIT onlythereafter. 7. As far as the second submission is concerned, this Court in Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd (supra) declared the law as it always stood. The question ofthe said decision applying only prospectively does not arise. While it will not result in matters that have attained finality being reopened, it will apply to cases that are pending at various levels in the hierarchy ofauthorities. 8, The Court, therefore, finds that there is no legal infirmity mthe impugned order ofthe ITAT giving rise to any substantial question oflaw. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. S. MURALIDHAR, J. - . PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. SEPTEMBER 20,2017/ 'anb' ITA 822/2017&ITA 824/2017 ^