9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (11) TMI 523 - AT - Income TaxWhether the assessee had moved the competent authority, being the ld. CIT, u/s.273AA in time Held that - Revenue did not dispute the filing of the application u/s 273AA by the assessee in time, i.e., on 24.04.2009 - the assessee have moved valid application/s u/s 273AA on 24.04.2009 with the competent authority, i.e., the office of the CIT - as the provision only bars an application after the levy of penalty, the other conditions of the provision, viz. abatement of the proceedings before the Settlement Commission, etc. being apparently and undisputedly satisfied - the assessee had duly informed the AO of the same in-as-much as he cannot plead prejudice if he had not duly communicated the said fact, i.e., of the application/s u/s.273AA having been moved before the competent authority, to the A.O. Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Non-disposal of application u/s 273AA Held that - There is no provision in section 275, which grants extended time (for the levy of penalty) where the order passed in the proceedings during the course of which the penalty proceedings had been initiated is being contested before the first or the second appellate authority, for keeping the penalty proceedings in abeyance for want of disposal of an application u/s 273AA, or section 273A for that matter - The two proceedings are independent of each other, and perhaps for the reason that, unlike the outcome of the quantum proceedings, which has a direct bearing on the levy or otherwise of penalty, the proceedings u/s 273A/273AA stand on altogether different footings - the penalty orders cannot be considered as being legally infirm in-as much as the AO was duty bound to have completed the penalty proceedings, validly initiated, within the statutory time period there-for - the provisions of section 273AA and section 271(1)(c) are independent of each other - therefore, the CIT should have proceeded in the matter, i.e., in deciding on the assessee s application u/s.273AA on merits, unguided and uninfluenced by the fact that the penalty stands already levied thus, the matter is to be remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without awaiting the disposal of the assessee's application under section 273AA. 2. Validity of the penalty imposition in light of non-disposal of the assessee's application under section 273AA. 3. Legal infirmity in the penalty imposition due to non-disposal of the application under section 273AA. 4. Restoration of penalty proceedings back to the Assessing Officer (A.O.) for reconsideration. Issue 1: Levy of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(c) Without Awaiting Disposal of Section 273AA Application: The judgment pertains to ten appeals by the Assessee against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee argued that the penalty was imposed without waiting for the disposal of its application under section 273AA. The Assessee claimed prejudice as the immunity under section 273AA could not be availed of. The Assessee requested the matter to be restored back to the A.O. for fresh adjudication after the disposal of the application under section 273AA. Issue 2: Validity of Penalty Imposition Without Disposal of Section 273AA Application: The Tribunal considered if the Assessee had moved the competent authority in time with the application under section 273AA. The Assessee filed an affidavit stating the application was submitted on time. The Tribunal noted that the Assessee had validly moved the application under section 273AA, satisfying the conditions of the provision. The Tribunal observed that the penalty proceedings were independent of the application under section 273AA and the A.O. was required to complete the penalty proceedings within the statutory time period. Issue 3: Legal Infirmity in Penalty Imposition Due to Non-Disposal of Section 273AA Application: The Tribunal analyzed the legal infirmity in the penalty imposition concerning the non-disposal of the Assessee's application under section 273AA. It was determined that the penalty orders were not legally infirm as the A.O. was duty-bound to complete the penalty proceedings within the statutory time frame. The Tribunal highlighted that the proceedings under section 273AA and section 271(1)(c) were independent, and the Assessee's application being un-disposed did not impact the validity of the penalty orders. Issue 4: Restoration of Penalty Proceedings to the Assessing Officer (A.O.): The Tribunal directed the penalty proceedings for all years to be set aside back to the A.O. The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) was instructed to dispose of the Assessee's application under section 273AA within ninety days, and the A.O. was directed to proceed with the penalty proceedings accordingly. The Tribunal emphasized that the restoration was to enable the Assessee to claim immunity under section 273AA and remove any prejudice caused. The appeals of the Assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. This comprehensive analysis of the legal judgment highlights the issues involved, the arguments presented by the parties, and the Tribunal's decision and reasoning for each issue.
|
