1989 (3) TMI 94 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues involved:
The issue involves the legality of a penalty order imposed on an assessee for the assessment year 1964-65, specifically questioning whether the order of penalty was barred by limitation or unnecessary delay.

Summary:

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh considered a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding the legality of a penalty order imposed on an assessee deriving income from forest contracts. The Income-tax Officer determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 19,000 for the assessment year 1964-65 and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 15,000 on the assessee on March 2, 1971. Subsequently, after an appeal, a fresh penalty order was passed on September 22, 1979. The Tribunal held that the penalty order should have been passed within two years of the assessment order, and as it exceeded the limitation, the penalty was set aside and the appeal was allowed.

The central question was whether the period of limitation prescribed by section 275 of the Act applies not only to the initial penalty order but also to the penalty order passed after the case is remanded by the appellate authority. The court analyzed the provisions of section 275 and relevant case law to determine the applicability of the limitation period.

The court held that the limitation period under section 275 applies only to the initial penalty order and not to subsequent penalty orders passed after a case is remanded by an appellate authority. It was emphasized that the delay in passing the penalty order subsequent to the remand did not render it unnecessary, as the Tribunal had not assessed the reasonableness of the delay. Therefore, the court concluded that the penalty order was not barred by limitation or unnecessarily delayed, overturning the Tribunal's decision.

In conclusion, the court answered the question in the negative, ruling against the assessee. The parties were directed to bear their own costs in the reference.