9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Delay in filing appeals by the Department. 2. Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and the issue of limitation. Issue 1 - Delay in filing appeals by the Department: The appeals and cross objections before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT GAUHATI pertained to the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83. The Department filed the appeals 31 days late, explaining that the delay was due to the non-receipt of a certified copy of the order of the CIT(A). The Departmental Representative argued that the delay should be condoned as per Rule 9 of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules. The assessee's representative objected to condoning the delay, citing a decision of the Madras High Court. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions, held that the delay of 31 days should be condoned. The Tribunal found that the delay was reasonable as the Income-tax Officer had applied for a certified copy of the order, and the delay was not intentional. The Tribunal referred to various court decisions to support its decision to condone the delay, emphasizing the need for a reasonable cause for the delay. The Tribunal ultimately admitted the appeals and proceeded to dispose of them on merits. Issue 2 - Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and the issue of limitation: The cross objections raised by the assessee included the question of the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The CIT(A) had cancelled the penalties, but the Department appealed against this decision. The main issue was the point of limitation for imposing penalties as per section 275 of the Act. The contention was whether the penalty orders passed on 29-3-1990 were within the prescribed period of limitation. The Tribunal analyzed the relevant provisions of section 275 and the timeline of events leading to the penalty orders. The Tribunal disagreed with the reasoning of the CIT(A) and the Departmental Representative, holding that the penalty orders were passed beyond the period of limitation. The Tribunal cited various court decisions, including those of the Supreme Court, to support its conclusion that the penalty orders were invalid due to being passed beyond the statutory limitation period. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the cross objections partly and dismissed the appeals by the Department. In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment addressed the issues of delay in filing appeals and the imposition of penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, providing detailed reasoning and legal analysis to support its decision to condone the delay and invalidate the penalty orders due to being passed beyond the limitation period.
|
