9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer is barred by limitation. 2. Whether the Assessing Officer had jurisdiction to pass the penalty order while the matter was subjudice before the Settlement Commission. 3. Whether the penalty order was justified on merits. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Whether the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer is barred by limitation. The assessee argued that the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer is barred by limitation under section 275 of the Income Tax Act. According to the assessee, the penalty proceedings were initiated on 14-9-1976, and the Settlement Commission granted immunity on 1-3-1979, which was set aside by the Apex Court on 11-3-1996. Therefore, excluding the period of immunity, the penalty order should have been passed by 11-4-1996. Since the penalty order was passed on 30-8-1996, it was argued to be barred by limitation. The Department contended that the period of limitation starts from the date the Settlement Commission admitted the assessee's petition and continues until the order of the Apex Court is received by the CIT. The Department also argued that section 275 does not prescribe a period of limitation for the specific circumstances of this case, and therefore, the penalty should be imposed within a reasonable time. The Tribunal held that clause (b) of section 275 is a residuary clause applicable in this case, and the penalty order must be passed within two years from the end of the financial year in which the penalty proceedings were initiated, excluding the period during which immunity was granted under section 245H. The Tribunal concluded that the immunity period started on 1-3-1979 (date of order under section 245D(4)) and ended on 11-3-1996 (date of the Apex Court order). Therefore, the penalty order should have been passed by 11-4-1996, and since it was passed on 30-8-1996, it was barred by limitation. Issue 2: Whether the Assessing Officer had jurisdiction to pass the penalty order while the matter was subjudice before the Settlement Commission. The assessee contended that the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to pass the penalty order as the matter was subjudice before the Settlement Commission, which had not passed any order giving effect to the Apex Court's decision. The Tribunal noted that the Settlement Commission had reopened the assessment proceedings for the years 1970-71 to 1974-75 and assumed jurisdiction over the penalty proceedings. However, the Apex Court set aside the Settlement Commission's order to the extent it waived the penalties, allowing the penalty proceedings to proceed according to law. The Tribunal held that once the Apex Court set aside the Settlement Commission's order, the Assessing Officer regained jurisdiction to pass the penalty order. Issue 3: Whether the penalty order was justified on merits. The Tribunal mentioned that both parties argued for and against the merits of the penalty. However, since the Tribunal held that the penalty order was barred by limitation, it did not consider it necessary to express any opinion on the merits of the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the penalties levied by the Assessing Officer for assessment years 1970-71 to 1974-75 were barred by limitation and, therefore, could not be sustained. The appeals of the assessee were allowed, and the penalties were cancelled.
|
