9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 20X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its own order dated 9.4.2007 in ITA No.766/Chd/2007, for the assessment year 1986-87, proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- "i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has fallen in error in holding that the penalty imposed by the AO has not become barred by time limitation despite there being bar under section 275(1)(a) of Income Tax Act, 1961 that no penalty can be imposed after the expiry of six months from the end of the month in which the order of the CIT(A) is received by the CIT? ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has fallen in error in holding that since the quantum appeal was pending before the Tribunal, the limitation period for imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... drop the penalty proceedings till the finalization of appeal. In response to this letter, the Assessing officer vide letter dated 22.7.1998 asked the assessee to submit supporting evidence of filing the appeal before the Tribunal, which was followed by another reminder, dated 31.7.1998 issued to the assessee. Thereafter, the assessee vide its letter dated 24.8.1998 mentioned that assessee filed the appeal on 24.8.1998 for the assessment years 1986-87, 1990-91 to 1992-93 before the Tribunal and requested to keep the penalty proceedings in abeyance till the decision of the Tribunal. In such a situation, we are not in agreement with the argument of the assessee that it is barred by limitation because firstly the period of six months from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... troduced by Finance Act No.2 of 1998. As per the said scheme, the assessee sought to exclude time taken in pursuing the revision petition under section 264 of the Act which was barred by limitation and delay was not condoned. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the revision petition having been filed beyond delay which was never condoned could not be treated as pending. The said analogy cannot be applied for limitation under section 275 of the Act. He relies upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mela Ram & Sons v. CIT, (1956) 29 ITR 607. The issue considered therein was in the context of limitation for further appeal. Appeal before the lower appellate court was beyond time. It was held that date of order dismissing the appeal as tim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
