By Jagdish D. Shah, Jagdish T. Punjabi, Chartered Accountants
fiogf49gjkf0d
New Page 1
Part B — Unreported Decisions
(Full texts of the following Tribunal decisions are available
at the Society’s office on written request. For members desiring that the
Society mails a copy to them, Rs.30 per decision will be charged for
photocopying and postage.)
21 Motilal Vishwakarma HUF v.
ITO
ITAT ‘B’ Bench, Mumbai
Before M. A. Bakshi (VP) and
R. K. Panda (AM)
ITA No. 7055/Mum./2007
A.Y. : 2003-04. Decided on : 27-8-2007
Counsel for assessee/revenue : Ajay C. Gosalia/
Garima Jain
S. 275 read with S. 271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 — Bar of
limitation for imposition of penalty — Whether limitation period applicable to
penalty imposed u/s.271B — Held, Yes.
Per M. A. Bakshi :
Facts :
The issue before the Tribunal was whether the penalty of
Rs.23,520 imposed on the assessee u/s.271B was barred by limitation. The
show-cause notice was issued and served in June 05 and the order imposing
penalty was passed on 27-2-2006. The contention of the assessee was that the
order has to be passed within six months from the date of initiation of the
proceeding.
Held :
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee that since the penalty
order has been passed after the expiry of six months from the end of June 2005,
it was barred by the period of limitation. Relying on the Special Bench decision
of the Chandigarh Tribunal in the case of Dewan Chand Amrit Lal & Ors., the
Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee.
Case referred to :
Dewan Chand Amrit Lal & Ors. v. DCIT, 283 ITR (AT) 203 (Chandigarh) (SB)
