9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 702X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AT had sent the order to the Principal CIT with whom the jurisdiction lied as per the record, though was transferred later on to another Principal CIT ? - As decided in ODEON BUILDERS PVT. LTD., GULBARGA ASSOCIATES (P) LTD. [ 2017 (3) TMI 1266 - DELHI HIGH COURT] once the ITAT sends a copy of an order to the Principal CIT / CIT and even the CIT (Judicial), going by the details as provided to it in the memo of parties and even if, therefore, there is a change concerning the jurisdiction of the CIT, it will not have the effect of postponing the commencing of the period of limitation in terms of section 260A(2)(a) of the Act. The Hon ble Delhi High Court while further answering the question No. (vii) has held that where there is a common order of the ITAT covering the several appeals, the limitation would begin to run when a certified copy is received first by either the CIT (Judicial) or one of the officers of the Department and not only when the CIT concerned receives it. The issue is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court. The penalty order in this case has been passed beyond the period of limitation, hence, the same is void ab initio and the sam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reas, as per the limitation period prescribed under the provisions of section 158BFA(3)(c) of the Act, the penalty order was to be passed before the expiry of six months from the end of the month in which the order of the ITAT was received by the Principal CIT / Commissioner. 5. For the sake of ready reference, the provisions of section 158BFA(3)(c) are reproduced s under:- "158BFA (3) No order imposing a penalty under sub-section (2) shall be made,- ………. (c) in a case where the assessment is the subject-matter of an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 246 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 completed, or six months from the end of the month in which the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Appellate Tribunal is received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, whichever period expires late." 6. Now the question for determination in this case is as to on what d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entral), Gurgaon. (Copy of letter is attached as Annexure-3). Further, from the perusal of the records, it is also observed that the case of the assessee was centralized with ACIT, Central Circle-II vide order u/s 127 of I.T. Act. 1961 dated 22.09.2010. Penalty order u/s 158BFA(2) of I.T. Act, 1961 was passed by then DCIT, Central Circle-II, Chandigarh on 28.04.2017 (Copy of demand notice is attached as Annexure-4). For any clarification undersigned may be contacted at 9463063842. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (ABHINAV AGNIHOTRI) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1), Chandigarh" 7. A perusal of the above reply reveals that the ITAT had pronounced the order in the Quantum appeal on 19.9.2014 and the order of the ITAT was received in the office of the Principal CIT-1, Chandigarh on 8.1.2015, however, the same was returned back by the office of the Principal CIT-1, Chandigarh on 20.1.2015 with a request to dispatch the order to the respective office as the jurisdiction did not lie with the Principal CIT-I, Chandigarh . A copy of the said letter dated 19.1.2015 of the concerned DCIT (Hq) (Jud.), Office of CIT-1 Chandigarh in this respect has been placed on the file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... those officers in the Department including the CIT (Judicial) will trigger the period of limitation. Q: (ii) Does limitation begin to run for the purposes of Section 260A (2) (a) only when a certified copy of the order of the ITAT is received by the 'concerned' CIT within whose jurisdiction the case of the Assessee falls notwithstanding that it may have been received by any other CIT, including the CIT (Judicial) prior thereto? Is it open to the Court to read the word 'concerned' into Section 260 A (2) (a) of the Act as a prefix to any of the officers of the Department named therein? Ans: In Section 260A (2) of the Act, the words CIT, Pr CIT or Chief CIT are not prefixed or qualified by the word 'concerned'. There is no warrant for the Court to read into the provision such a qualifying word. The Court rejects the contention of the Revenue that limitation for the purposes of Section 260A(2) (a) begins to run only when a certified copy of the order of the ITAT is received by the 'concerned' CIT within whose jurisdiction the case of the Assessee falls notwithstanding that it may have been received by any other CIT, including the CIT (Judicial) pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Department through its DR or CIT (Judicial) to apply for a certified copy of the order of the ITAT and should limitation for the purposes of Section 260A (2) (a) be computed from the date on which such certified copy is made ready for delivery by the ITAT? Ans: While there is no requirement for the DR or CIT (Judicial) to apply for a certified copy of the ITAT, in any event under the extant ITAT Rules, a copy of the order is sent to the CIT (Judicial). In the context of Section 260A(2)(a) of the Act, once an order is listed for pronouncement in the ITAT, the DR or the CIT (Judicial) should be taken to be aware of the order. From that point, it is a purely an internal administrative arrangement as to how the DR or CIT (Judicial) obtains and further communicates the order to the officer who has to take a decision on filing the appeal. It is possible that immediately after pronouncement, the AR or the DR or both may apply for a certified copy of the order of the ITAT. In that case, the time taken for the certified copy to be readied for collection by the applicant will be excluded while computing limitation. But here again, if earlier to such date, a copy is received by a party f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
