Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.50 seconds)
Documents citing Tarlochan Singh And Sons (Huf) vs Income Tax Officer on 21 September, 2007

Jasbir Singh S/O S. Gurdev Singh, ... vs Assessee on 29 March, 2010

7. The section prescribes the time period within which an order imposing penalt y under Chapter XXI is to be passed. Sub section 1(a) to section 275 of the Act provides that where the order of assessment or any other order is subject matter of appeal before the C IT(A) or the Tribunal, an order imposing penalt y cannot be passed after the expiry of financial year in the course of which the proceedings for imposition of penalt y were initiated, or six months from the end of the month in which the order of C IT(A) or Appellate Tribunal is received by the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, whichever period expires later. The proviso to section 275(1)(a) of the Act further provides that where the CIT(A) passes an order on and after Ist day of June 2003 disposing of an appeal, an order imposing penalt y shall be passed before the expiry of the financial year in the course of which the proceedings for imposition of penalt y were 7 initiated, or within one year from the end of the financial year in which the order of C IT(A) was received by the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner whichever is later. The Amritsar Bench of the Tribunal in Tarlochan Singh & Sons (HUF) Vs. ITO (supra) where the order of CIT(A) in quantum appeal was passed after Ist June, 2003, proviso to Section 275(1)(a) would be applicable for levy of penalt y and not the main provision of s.275(1)(a); otherwise the proviso would be redundant.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Tube Investments Of India Ltd., Chennai vs Assessee

6. Still aggrieved, the assessee has come up in appeal and while reiterating the submissions as made before the ld. CIT(A) on both the points, it was further pleaded that firstly in view of the provisions as contained in proviso to section 275(1)(a), penalty could only be imposed before expiry of the financial year in which proceedings, in the course of which action for imposition of the penalty has been initiated are completed, or within one year from the end of the financial year in which the order of the ld. CIT(A) is received by the CCIT or CIT, whichever is later, and in this case as per appeal form, the CIT(A)'s order has been received on 12.04.2007, therefore, penalty could be imposed upto 31.03.2009, whereas the 7 I.T.A. Nos Nos.1757 & 1920/Mds/10 same has been imposed on 17.06.2009. Therefore, it is barred by time limitation. Reliance in this regard has been placed by the ld. Counsel for the assessee on Amritsar Bench of Tribunal in the case of Tarlochan Singh & Sons (HUF) vs. ITO [114 TTJ 82], Delhi Bench decision in the case of Cosmo Films Ltd. vs. ACIT in ITA No. 2192/Del/2010 vide order dated 22.07.2011; Mohair Investment and Trading Company (P) Ltd. in ITA No. 4677/Del/2009 vide order dated 30.04.2010 and Lucknow Bench decision in the case of ITO vs. Bloosom Floriculture in ITA No.647/Luck/2008 [134 TTJ 51].
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Tarlochan Singh , Amritsar vs Income Tax Oficer Ward 4 (4), Amritsar on 12 February, 2019

4. I have heard the parties, as well as perused the material on record. There has been in the present case, as apparent, non-grant of proper opportunity by the first appellate authority to the assessee to state his case before him, so that, clearly, there has been a denial of natural justice. The determination on merits being sans proper opportunity of hearing being granted, would, accordingly, be of little consequence, even as the assessment has also been framed u/s. 144, which though not challenged, implies the assessee's case has been largely unrepresented. Further, vide Ground 1 of his appeal before him, the assessee has challenged the proceedings u/s. 147, which remains unaddressed. Under the circumstances, it is only deemed fit and proper that the matter is restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for adjudication of the assessee's appeal on merits, per a speaking order in 3 ITA No. 198/Asr/2018 (AY 2010-11) Tarlochan Singh v. ITO terms of section 250(6) of the Act. Needless to add, the assessee shall, as also assured by Sh. Kalia before me, extend full cooperation in the matter. The appeal being long delayed, the ld. CIT(A) shall endeavor to decide the same within a period of three months of the receipt of this order. I decide accordingly.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri H.K. Gandotra, Gurgaon vs The Inocme-Tax Officer, Jammu on 28 June, 2019

Therefore, the view that the time limit in all cases where the order by the first appellate authority is passed on after 01.6.2003 shall be governed by the proviso, that is, even where that said order is not final and is subject to further appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, as held in Tarlochan Singh (HUF) (supra), may not be the correct view, even as on the basis of judicial precedents, that by the higher courts of law shall apply. No decision by any Hon'ble High Court taking a contrary view was brought to my notice, or even otherwise noticed. The assessee's plea qua time limitation, thus, cannot be accepted.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mahindra Intertrade Ltd , Mumbai vs Assessee on 30 April, 2010

On the case laws relied upon by the learned Counsel, the learned Departmental Representative submitted that in both the judgments i.e., Tarlochan Singh & Sons (HUF) (supra) and Bloosom Floriculture (supra), the judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in Rayala Corporation P. Ltd. (supra) was not considered. He submitted that the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals), that the order under section 8 Mahindra Intertrade Ltd.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kanaiyalal C. Thakor, Valsad vs Assessee

Since it was not clear whether the AO intended to levy penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars or for concealment of income, penalty order is required to be quashed in view of decision in CIT v. Manu Engineering Works (1980) 122 ITR 306 (Guj), Navinbhai M. Patel v. ITO (1988) 27 ITD 411 (Ahd-Trib); and Tarlochan Singh & Sons (HUF) Vs. ITO (2008) 114 TTJ 82. As regards merit of penalty, the assessee submitted that right from the beginning, assessee's income has been accepted by the department and even in subsequent years also, such income is accepted. Besides the agricultural land is an ancestral property of the assessee and therefore , there is no case for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of the income which empowered the AO to levy penalty.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Prem Gupta, Jammu vs Assessee on 25 July, 2016

3. At the time of hearing the learned AR submitted that he will be arguing ground No.3. First, which was a jurisdictional ground and in this respect he invited our attention to ground No.3 and submitted that penalty proceedings in this case were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealing the particulars of income. He submitted that there was no application of mind by the Assessing Officer as no specific charge was framed against the assessee while initiating the penalty proceedings. The learned AR in this respect invited our attention to the assessment order and submitted that in the last concluding para 3 ITA No.575 (Asr)/2014 Asst. Year: 2006-07 the Assessing Officer had noted down that penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment the particulars of income are being initiated. The learned AR, therefore, submitted that there was no specific charges framed by Assessing Officer. The learned AR also took us to (PB page-2) where a copy of show cause notice was placed and learned AR submitted that in the show cause notice also the Assessing Officer had charged the assessee regarding concealment of particulars of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. He submitted that the case of the assessee was covered in his favour by various decisions of Hon'ble High Courts and Hon'ble ITAT, Amritsar Bench in the case of Tarlochan Singh & Sons (HUF) vs. ITO reported in 114 TTJ 82 and further by the order of ITAT, Amritsar Bench in the case of Sh. Jayesh R Kamani vs. ITO No.453(Asr)/2007 vide order dated 29.05.2009. The learned AR, in this respect invited our attention to (PB pages 1 to 29) where the copies of these two decisions was placed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next