9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 014 upon the default of the notice dated 18.02.2014, requiring the petitioner/assessee to produce the relevant documents under Section 92D(3) of the Act. The time given for this purpose was till 25.03.2014. It is therefore submitted that the default, if any, occasioning penalty event occurred on 25.03.2014; since as on that date, the TPO did not possess the requisite jurisdiction to initiate penalty proceedings and its imposition subsequently on 16.01.2015, was not justified. 2. The necessary facts are that for the Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12, the assessee had filed its returns. This included a transfer pricing report. The TPO apparently took cognizance of reports and desired the assessee to produce some documents in support of its case; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nior Counsel for the assessee contended that the penalty event, as it emerges in the present case, could not be postponed or varied. Learned counsel relied upon the rulings of the Supreme Court in Brij Mohan vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1979) 120 ITR 1 SC and also Varkey Chacko vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1993) 203 ITR 885 (SC), to say that event of default or at the most the event of recording reasons constitutes the defining point of jurisdiction. In the present case, so called default, noticed by the AO, was acted upon on 25.03.2014. The mere circumstance that the AO did not choose to act upon, it did not mean that the cause for imposing penalty was postponed within the period when the power was expanded under amendment to Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rules during the assessment year in respect of which the total income is assessed and the tax liability determined. The rate of tax is determined by the relevant Finance Act. In the case of a penalty, however, we must remember that a penalty is imposed on account of the commission of a wrongful act, and plainly it is the law operating on the date on which the wrongful act is committed which determines the penalty. Where penalty is imposed for concealment of particulars of income, it is the law ruling on the date when the act of concealment takes place which is relevant. It is wholly immaterial that the income concealed was to be assessed in relation to an assessment year in the past........" 7. In Varkey Chacko (supra), the Supreme Court s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e opinion of this Court is insubstantial. The amendment to the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act empowers the Sessions Court to entertain, take cognizance and try offences under that enactment; either of those offences were triable by the Magistrate. The Supreme Court repelled the submissions made on behalf of the accused/opposite party of prejudice. The arguments made on their behalf was that the Magistrates were empowered to try summarily offences, that was the subject matter of the complaint and other proceedings before them and that this had led to the approval of valuable rights under Section 260 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C). The Supreme Court repelled this argument, stating that there was no right to particular ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
