Novartis India Ltd, Mumbai vs Acit Cir 7(2)(2), Mumbai on 26 October, 2018
3. We find that the assessee as a cross-objector has assailed the
validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the A.O for imposing penalty
under Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The cross-objection filed by the
assessee involves a delay of 219 days. An application seeking
condonation of the aforesaid delay in filing of the cross-objection was
filed by an authorised signatory of the assessee. However, the ld. A.R
sought the liberty of the bench to place on record the 'Affidavit' of the
director of the assessee company for explaining the reasons leading to
delay involved in filing of the cross objection, which in all fairness was
permitted. The assessee had thereafter placed on record an 'Affidavit'
of Ms. Monaz Noble, whole time director of the assessee company. It is
deposed by the director that the delay in filing of the cross-objection
had occasioned as she had gathered about the lapse on the part of the
A.O in imposing penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) beyond the stipulated
time period, only after perusing the judgment of the Hon'ble High
Court of Delhi in the case of Salora International Limited Vs. CIT, New
Delhi (2018) 91 taxmann.com 287 (Delhi). We have given a thoughtful
consideration to the contentions of the assessee cross-objector, and
are of the considered view that the request of the assessee for
condonation of delay merits acceptance. Firstly, the said delay to our
understanding is not backed by any lapse or laches on the part of the
cross-objector, but had occasioned for the reason that the director of
the assessee company had learnt about the fact that the penalty
under Sec. 271(1)(c) was imposed beyond limitation much subsequent
to the receipt of the 'Memorandum of appeal' filed by the revenue. We
are of the considered view, that in case the assessee would have been
aware about the said material lapse on the part of the A.O, then there
would have been no reason for it to have delayed the filing of the
cross-objection. Further, we find that the assessee by raising a claim
that the penalty imposed by the A.O under Sec. 271(1)(c) was barred
P a g e |4
ITA No. 4254/Mum/2016 & C.O. No. 246/Mum/2018 - A.Y 1992-93
ACIT, Circle-7(2)(2) Vs. M/s Novartis India Pvt. Ltd.