Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2017 (5) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2017 (5) TMI 433 - HC - Income Tax


Issues:
- Whether the order imposing the penalty was passed within the time limit under Section 275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed by the Revenue against the ITAT order for the Assessment Year 2009-10, questioning the imposition of penalty within the time limit specified in Section 275(1)(c) of the Act.
2. Following a search operation, a notice under Section 153A was issued to the Assessee, leading to an Assessment Order by the AO. However, the penalty proceedings were initiated more than six months after the assessment order.
3. The Assessee contended that the penalty proceedings were time-barred under Section 275(1)(c) of the Act, which sets a limit for passing penalty orders.
4. The ACIT passed the penalty orders in February 2013, negating the limitation plea, but the CIT(A) later canceled the penalties on merits while upholding the initiation of penalties within the time limit.
5. The ITAT, referring to previous decisions, held that the penalty orders were indeed barred by limitation under Section 275(1)(c) of the Act.
6. The Revenue relied on a different case to argue that the starting point of limitation should be the date of issuance of the Show Cause Notice, but the Court distinguished that case and upheld the decision based on the initiation of penalty proceedings.
7. The Court clarified that the date of initiation of penalty proceedings is crucial for determining the limitation period under Section 275(1)(c) and in this case, the penalty orders issued in February 2013 were beyond the prescribed limit.
8. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals, stating that no substantial question of law arose from the ITAT's order, as the penalty orders were clearly barred by limitation under the Act.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates