9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves issues related to the imposition of penalty u/s 271E of the Income-tax Act for failure to comply with the provisions of section 269T, and the interpretation of the limitation period for passing the penalty order u/s 275(1)(c). Imposition of Penalty u/s 271E: The case involved a deposit made with the assessee-firm, where repayment was not made in accordance with the provisions of section 269T of the Act. The Income-tax Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271E by issuing a notice on 1-8-2003, which was later referred to the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax. The Joint Commissioner issued a notice on 3-9-2003, and subsequently imposed a penalty of Rs. 4,89,450 on 29-3-2004. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, stating that no penalty was leviable due to the time bar and the absence of money transfer. Interpretation of Limitation Period: The dispute arose regarding the calculation of the limitation period for passing the penalty order. The Revenue argued that the penalty order was within the time limit as per section 275(1)(c), calculated from the date of notice issued by the Joint Commissioner. The assessee contended that the order was beyond time, citing the notice issued by the Income-tax Officer on 1-8-2003. The High Court analyzed the dates of notices and concluded that the penalty order passed on 29-3-2004 was within the prescribed time limit. Decision and Remand: The High Court held that the penalty order was not time-barred and favored the Revenue on the first issue. However, it found errors in the Tribunal's consideration of the merit of the case. The Tribunal failed to assess whether there was a default under section 269T or any reasonable cause for the default as required under section 273B. Consequently, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order, remanding the matter for a fresh decision considering the observations made. This summary provides a detailed overview of the judgment, highlighting the key legal issues, arguments presented by both parties, and the High Court's decision on each issue.
|
