9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (10) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of I.T. under s. 271(1)(c)? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in not remanding the case back to the IAC as the time-limit to impose penalty under s. 271(1)(c) had already expired ? " Facts necessary for the disposal of this application are that nonapplicant assessee carried on business in liquor contracts. For the assessment year 1972-73 for which the account period ended on March 31, 1972, the non-applicant filed a return in the status of individual showing income of Rs. 14,247. It is further alleged that the non-applicant did not maintain any books of account of the business. He had based his income on the copy of the register obtained from District Excise Authoritie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by his order dated April 3,1978. Against this order of imposing penalty, an appeal was preferred before the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal held that no adequate opportunity was given to the non-applicant before penalty was imposed against him and, therefore, set aside the order imposing the penalty. It was suggested before the Tribunal that the matter be sent back to the IAC for giving adequate opportunity to the non-applicant but this request was negatived by the Tribunal on the ground that the imposition of penalty now after giving adequate opportunity would be barred by limitation under s. 275 of the I.T. Act. The Tribunal, therefore, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the IAC imposing penalty against the nonapplicant. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of s. 275 and felt that now the proceedings for imposing penalty could go beyond the time prescribed under s. 275. The learned counsel for the Department placed before us decisions in Vasani and Co. v. CIT [1978] 112 ITR 819 (Guj), Seth Keshrichand Khaitan Educational and Welfare Trust v. CIT [1982] 138 ITR 351 (Cal) (sic) and CIT v. Saligram Premnath [1984] 148 ITR 302 (P & H), to contend that the limitation provided in s. 275 will only be applicable in the case of starting of original proceedings before the authority for imposition of penalty but this provision will not be attracted in the case of remand, as is clear from the language of s. 275 and, in this context, contended that even if any other view is possible still it could not be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
