9911796707
TMI Blog666/CBDT.X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... letter of even number dated the 21st December, 1972, it was stated that the CIT is competent to exercise his power under Section 271 (4A) even after an officer subordinate to him has passed an order imposing or confirming the penalty. A question has arisen whether the pendency of appeal against order imposing penalty before the AAC. or Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is not bar for invoking the provisions of section 271 (4A) to the effect that the assessee should not have filed any appeal against the penalty order. The conditions stipulated under section 271 (4A) are entirely different from these stipulated under Section 271(1) warranting levy of penalty. The C.I.T. can, therefore, interfere under section 271 (4A) even during pendency of appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , if the assessee comes under section 271(4A), these considerations are not relevant. What the Commissioner of Income-tax is to see before considering the applicability of section 271(4A) is whether there has been prior detection by the Income-tax Officer and whether other conditions mentioned in that section are entirely satisfied. The question whether the penalty to be levied should be nil for something below the minimum by invoking section 271(4A) is a matter which is entirely within the discretion of the Commissioner or the Board as the case may be. In view of this, the Commissioner can been confirmed by an appellate authority. (iii) Can the Commissioner interfere under section 271 (4A) where the penalty order has already been confirm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come-tax has already rejected the petition under section 271(4A) in accordance with the Board's Letter F.No.1-33/68-IT(Inv) dated 29th September, 1969, inviting or accepting another application under Section 271(4A), would amount to reviewing his own orders. Is there any power to the Commissioner of Income-tax for such review? The question that has been raised is whether it would be open to the Commissioner to pass an order under section 271 (4A) after he had rejected an earlier application from the assessee under this section on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to entertain it, a penalty having already been imposed by the Income-tax Officer. The Ministry of Law to whom the matter was referred has advised that the general rule is th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not necessary to lay down a time limit for filing an application under section 271(4A) Otherwise will it not become administratively impossible to deal with such applications? The law as it stands at present does not lay down any time limit. It would not be appropriate for the Board to lay down a general rule fixing a time limit when this has not been done by the statute. In civil litigation, the court generally apply the principle of laches. In other words, if a person comes to the court of equity after considerable delay, the court denies him the relief. Then the question will arise as to what extent the delay can be condemned. No hard and fast rule can be laid for this purpose. It would be open to the authority exercising the discreti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
