ORIGIN CLOTHING CO (I) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT (TDS) 2, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4031/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 December 2015AY 2008-092 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds and remanded the issues, including those on merits, to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed three appeals for AYs 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2011-12. The assessee raised additional legal grounds concerning the time limitation for penalty orders.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty orders were passed beyond the prescribed time limitation and the admissibility of additional legal grounds for adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(k)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Mayur Kishadwala
Hearing: 16.12.2015Pronounced: 16.12.2015

PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: There are three appeals under consideration involving the AYs 2008-09; 2009-10 and 2011-12 and they are filed by the assessee. Since, the issues raised in all these appeals are identical, therefore, for the sake of convenience, they are clubbed, heard together and disposed of in this consolidated order. Appeal wise adjudication is given in the following paragraphs of this order.

2.

At the outset, Shri Mayur Kishnadwala, Ld Counsel for the assessee brought our attention to the common additional grounds, which are legal in nature, filed for all the three appeals and the said additional legal ground reads as under: “On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed u/s 271(1)(k) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad in law.”

3.

Explaining the above legal ground, Ld Counsel for the assessee demonstrated that the order of the AO is dated 29.12.2011 for the AY 2008-2009 and the relevant show cause notice was issued by the Addl. CIT (TDS), Range-2 on 16.5.2011. In such case, the impugned penalty orders are passed beyond the prescribed time limitation of 6 months provided in the Act. Further, he submitted that the additional grounds may be admitted and remanded to the file of the CIT (A) for adjudication of the same considering the set principles of the natural justice.

4.

After hearing both the parties, we admit the additional grounds raised by the assessee in all the three appeals under consideration and remand the issues involved in the additional grounds as well as the grounds raised on the merits to the file of the CIT (A) for adjudication of the same after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, all the issues raised in the appeals under consideration including merits are allowed for statistical purposes.

5.

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 16th December, 2015. (AMARJIT SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER भुंफई Mumbai; ददनांक 16/12/2015 व.नन.स./ OKK , Sr. PS आदेश की प्रतिलऱपि अग्रेपिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीराथी / The Appellant 1. प्रत्मथी / The Respondent. 2. आमकय आमुक्त(अऩीर) / The CIT(A)- 3. आमकय आमुक्त / CIT 4. ववबागीम प्रनतननधध, आमकय अऩीरीम अधधकयण, भुंफई / DR,

5.

ITAT, Mumbai गार्ड पाईर / Guard file. 6. सत्मावऩत प्रनत //// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उि/सहायक िंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →