9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 514X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Rastogi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner along with Mr. Vinay Mistri, Advocate on record and Ms. Archana Sinha for the Department. It is the initiation of the proceeding under Section 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') vide notice dated 27.11.2014 which led to the filing of the writ petition. While the matter is pending that the final order has been passed on 21.09.2016 placed on record through Annexure-1 to I.A. No.7919 of 2016. The notice/order is put to question in this writ petition relying upon the prescription underlying Section 275(1)(c) of 'the Act', which inter alia prescribes a stipulated period for passing of final order once a proceeding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 271E of 'the Act' by service of notice thereunder dated 27.11.2014 at Annexure-2 to the writ petition. It is at this stage that the petitioner approached this court and while the matter is pending before this court that final order has been passed on 29.01.2016, which has been placed on record vide Annexure-1 series to I.A. No. 7919/2016, and since it is consequential to the notice which was impugned before this court that we have permitted the petitioner to question the same in the present proceedings. Section 271E falls under Chapter-XXI which deals with 'penalties imposable' and makes any person liable to penalty for any contravention of the provisions of Section 269T. Such proceedings are regulated under Section 275 which prescribes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner of the provisions underlying Section 269(T) of 'the Act'. Undisputedly, in between the issuance of the show cause notice on 27.11.2014 and the date of passing of the final orders on 29.01.2016, the limitation period prescribed under Section 275(1) (c) had expired. Ms. Archana Sinha, learned counsel for the Department has relied upon the explanation accompanying the provision of Section 275 to justify the delay, as according to her, a proceeding for rectification under Section 154 was pending and got disposed only on 26.11.2015. We fail to appreciate as to how even this order on the rectification application, passed on 26.11.2015 as admitted by Ms. Sinha would save the limitation for the Department because even though the law does not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee then went in appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Two separate orders dated September 10, 2013 were passed and the penalty imposed was cancelled on the merits. However, on the aspect of penalty orders being barred by limitation, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) negated the plea of the assessee. 10. In the present case, the limitation in terms of Section 275(1)(c) of the Act began to run on July 23, 2012 and the last date for passing the penalty orders was January 31, 2013. Therefore, the penalty orders issued on February 26, 2013 were clearly barred by limitation." On the undisputed facts discussed above and in view of the legal position noted, we are persuaded with the argument of Mr. Rastogi to hold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
