Subscribe to the Bombay Chartered Accountant Journal Subscribe Now!

May 2015

2015-TIOL-408-ITAT-DEL ITO vs. JKD Capital & Finlease Ltd. ITA No. 5443/Del/2013 Assessment Year : 2005-06. Date of Order: 27.3.2015

By C. N. Vaze
Shailesh Kamdar
Jagdish T. Punjabi
Bhadresh Doshi Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 2 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
Section 269SS, 271E, 275(1)(c) – Cases of levy of penalty u/s. 271E are covered by section 271(1)(c) and accordingly orders passed u/s. 271E will be barred by limitation on 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 penalty proceedings are initiated, whichever period expires later.

Facts:
In the case of the assessee, proceedings for levy of penalty u/s. 271E were initiated in assessment order dated 28th December, 2007. Aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee preferred an appeal to the CIT(A) on various grounds. The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed by the CIT(A). Upon dismissal of the appeal filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer (AO) referred the matter regarding levy of penalty u/s. 271E to the Ad ditional Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner passed an order levying penalty u/s. 271E on 20th March, 2012.

Aggrieved by the levy of penalty, the assessee preferred an appeal to CIT(A) who quashed the order levying the penalty on the ground that it is barred by limitation.

Aggrieved, the Revenue preferred an appeal to the Tribunal.

Held:
The Tribunal noted that the Delhi High Court has in the case of CIT vs. Worldwide Township Projects Ltd. 269 CTR 444 (Del) held that section 275(1)(c) will apply to cases of penalty for violation of section 269SS. The Tribunal held that the date on which CIT(A) had passed order in quantum proceedings had no relevance as it did not have any bearing on the issue of penalty. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had rightly held that the penalty order passed by the AO was barred by limitation as the penalty order was passed beyond six months from the end of the month in which penalty proceedings were initiated in the month of December 2007 and penalty order was thus required to be passed in before 30th June, 2008 whereas the penalty order was passed on 20th March, 2012.

You May Also Like