TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent : Mr.A.N.R.Jayaprathap for Mr.A.P.Srinivas ORDER Heard Mr.R.Sivaraman, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr.A.P.Srinivas and Mr.A.N.R.Jayaprathap, the learned Senior Standing Counsels for the respondent, and carefully perused the materials placed on record, including the counter affidavit filed by the respondent. 2. Since the relief sought for, in these Writ Petitions is common and the petitioner in W.P.No.31217 of 2017, being the Company and the other petitioners, being the Directors, all these Writ Petitions were heard together and disposed of, by the common order. W.P.No.31217 of 2017, filed by the Company is taken as a lead case, and it would suffice to refer to the facts stated thereunder. 3. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show cause as to why, penalty should not be levied. These notices are put to challenge in these Writ Petitions. 4. The sheet anchor of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that, the impugned notices are in violation of the limitation prescribed under Section 275 of the Act. It is further submitted that the respondent ought to have initiated penalty proceedings for the impugned assessment years (in W.P.No.31217 of 2017, AY 2011-12) either before the end of the financial year, in which, the proceedings have been initiated, or within a period of six months from the date of passing of the order by the CIT (A). 5. It is further submitted that, by issuing the impugned notices dated 11.09.2017 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he impugned notices at this juncture or not. 8. Section 275 of the Income Tax Act deals with bar of Limitation for imposing penalties, and the said provision read as follows :- 13[(1)] Bar of Limitation for imposing penalties- No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be passed [(a) in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject matter of an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 246 16[or section 246A] or an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under section 253, after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed16a, or six months from the end of the month in which the ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner (Appeals) under section 246 or section 246A or an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under section 253 or an appeal to the High Court under section 260A or an appeal to the Supreme Court under section 261 or revision under section 263 or section 264 and an order imposing or enhancing or reducing or cancelling penalty or dropping the proceedings for the imposition of penalty is passed before the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal or the High Court or the Supreme Court is received by the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner or the order of revision under section 263 or section 264 is passed, an order imposing or enhancing or reducing or cancelling penalty or dropping the proceedings for the imposition of penal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hus, the time limit as per the second limb is six months from the end of the month, in which, the order of Commissioner (Appeals) is received. So far as the petitioner in W.P.No.31217 of 2017 is concerned, the relevant assessment year is 2011-12 and the order of assessment under Section 143(3) was passed on 30.12.2016. Therefore, the limitation for initiation of penalty under Section 275 (1) (a) of the Act, is on or before 31.03.2017, as per the first limb of the said provision. According to the second limb of the provision, though it is six months from the end of the month, in which, the Commissioner (Appeals) has received the Appeal, in the instant case, the proviso to Section 275 (1)(a) would be attracted and the period would be one year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|