Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

discretion for levy of penalty rests only with the Assessing Officer ("A.O.") and as per the definition under section 2(7A), A.O. means - Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Director or Deputy Director or the Income Tax Officer and that Ld. CIT(A) does not fall within the definition of "Assessing Officer" and thus, according to him, the Ld. CIT(A) cannot issue any direction for levy of penalty under section 271AAA of the I.T. Act, 1961. He, therefore, submitted that the direction of the Ld. CIT(A) for levy of the penalty becomes void abinitio. 5.4. Learned A.R. thereafter, referred to the powers of the Commissioner (Appeals) as contemplated under section 251 of the I.T. Act, 1961. He, referring to the provisions of Section 251(1)(b) the CIT(A) in an appeal against the order imposing a penalty can either confirm the penalty or he may cancel the penalty or he may vary it either to enhance the penalty or reduce the penalty. He submitted that the impugned order before Ld. CIT(A) was against the order imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. He submitted that as per the provisions of Section 251(1)(b) it ITA.No.4795/Del./2017 M/s. Asia Sugar Industries Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.

provisions of Section 251 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and thus, invalid and void abinitio. He thereafter submitted that the action of the Ld. CIT(A) ordering for initiation of penalty under section 271AAA is also barred by limitation as prescribed under section 275 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and, therefore, void abinitio. He submitted that as per the provisions of Section 275(1)(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the order of penalty could have been passed latest by the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings in the course of which action for imposition of penalty has been initiated or completed i.e., latest by 31.03.2013 or within one year from the end of the financial year in which the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was received by Principal Chief Commissioner i.e., by 31.03.2016. He submitted that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on 30.05.2017 being beyond the prescribed date, it is, therefore, barred by limitation and thus, void abinitio. He, therefore, submitted that direction for levy of penalty by the Ld. CIT(A) under section 271AAA is bad in law and, therefore, be set aside.