9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ixing the date of hearing on 17.4.2003, which is prior to 13.05.2003, being the date of the alleged service of the order of the Tribunal on the competent CIT. As the CIT, Kolhapur had the jurisdiction over the AO and the order of Tribunal was served on CIT, Kolhapur, on 13.12.2002, in our considered opinion, the limitation period has to be reckoned from the date of such service. Going by this date of service of order of Tribunal on CIT, Kolhapur, we hold that the penalty order passed by the AO on 30-09-2003 is time-barred. Both the sides are in agreement that the facts and circumstances of other six appeals are similar to that of Ekata P. Raka. We hold that the penalty orders passed on these six persons were also time-barred. - Decide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ived by the Commissioner on 13-12-2002. Relying on the provisions of section 275(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called `the Act ), the assessee contended that penalty order could not be passed as having become time-barred. The AO vide Para 6 of his penalty order observed that the order of the ITAT was received by CIT-IV, Pune on 13-05-2003, which was, in turn, received by him on 14-05-2003 and hence, the penalty order was not time-barred. No relief was allowed in the first appeal. The assessee has approached the Tribunal contending that the penalty order passed by the AO was time-barred. 4. We have heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record. Relevant part of section 275 containing bar of li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period of six months from the end of the month in which the order of Tribunal is received by the competent Commissioner. The Tribunal passed quantum order on 13-11-2002. The case of the assessee is that the order of Tribunal was received by the Commissioner, Kolhapur, under whose jurisdiction the AO imposing penalty falls, on 13-12-2002. Since the penalty order was passed on 30-09-2003, which is beyond a period of six months from the end of December, 2002, the proceedings became time-barred. On the other hand, the AO has made out a case that the Tribunal order was received by the office of CIT-IV, Pune on 13-05-2003. Going by that, the penalty order passed on 30-09-2003 was within a period of six months from the end of May, 2013. 6. W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T-IV, Pune on 13-05-2003. The ld. DR did not deny this fact. In our considered opinion, the internal transfer of documents including the Tribunal order from the office of CIT, Kolhapur to CIT-IV, Pune, cannot have any bearing on the determination of the date on which the order of Tribunal was served on the competent Commissioner having jurisdiction over the case at the material time. It has been further brought to our notice that the ITO Ward 1(1), Solapur issued notice for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on 4.4.2003 fixing the date of hearing on 17.4.2003, which is prior to 13.05.2003, being the date of the alleged service of the order of the Tribunal on the competent CIT. As the CIT, Kolhapur had the jurisdiction over the AO and the orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
