9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the penalty order passed is barred by limitation under section 275 of the Income-tax Act, 1961? Analysis: The judgment by the High Court of Madras dealt with a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding the imposition of a penalty on an assessee for furnishing a wrong estimate for advance tax payable. The primary issue was whether the penalty order was time-barred under section 275 of the Act. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) had issued a notice for penalty due to the prima facie incorrect estimate provided by the assessee. The assessee contended that the penalty proceedings were time-barred as two years had passed since the assessment order. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) initially ruled in favor of the assessee, citing the time limit under the pre-amendment section 275. However, the Tribunal overturned this decision, stating that the penalty order was not barred by limitation due to an amendment extending the time limit. The key legal question revolved around whether the original provision of section 275, which imposed a two-year time limit for penalty proceedings, or the amended provision, which extended the time limit based on the completion of certain proceedings, applied to the case. The High Court referenced a similar case and established that if the period of limitation is extended before it expires, the extended period would apply. The Court emphasized that the amended provision aimed to prevent undue harassment to the assessee by allowing the penalty to be levied after the final order post-assessment. It was clarified that the amendment was procedural in nature and did not confer any vested rights to the assessee. Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument of a vested right accruing to the assessee based on the completion date of the assessment. Citing a precedent related to the applicability of the law in force at the time of assessment, the Court distinguished between jurisdictional matters and procedural provisions. It was concluded that the amended provision of section 275, which came into force before the original time limit expired, would apply to the case. Therefore, the Court answered the reference question in the affirmative, favoring the Revenue, and awarded costs to the Revenue.
|
