Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (1.50 seconds)Section 275 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Income-Tax Officer vs Smt. Gurinder Kaur on 16 June, 2006
13. On the basis of threadbare analysi s of Rule 27 in the
light of propositions/dicta laid down by the Hon'ble High
Court of Bombay in various decision including the order in
the case of B.L. Bamasi [supra] and order of the co-ordinate
Bench of ht Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs. Smt. Gurinder
Kaur [supra] we reach to a fo rtified conclusion that in the
present case the assessee-respondent can very w ell challenge
the impugned penalty order without filing any cross appeal or
cross objection by invoking legally available right as
mandated by Rule 27 of the Rules.
Section 88E in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
B.R. Bamasi vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... on 16 February, 1970
13. On the basis of threadbare analysi s of Rule 27 in the
light of propositions/dicta laid down by the Hon'ble High
Court of Bombay in various decision including the order in
the case of B.L. Bamasi [supra] and order of the co-ordinate
Bench of ht Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs. Smt. Gurinder
Kaur [supra] we reach to a fo rtified conclusion that in the
present case the assessee-respondent can very w ell challenge
the impugned penalty order without filing any cross appeal or
cross objection by invoking legally available right as
mandated by Rule 27 of the Rules.
Hukam Chand Mills Ltd. Indore vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bombay on 19 March, 1976
11. Even de hors Rule 27 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, it is
open to the respondent in an appeal before the Tribunal to raise
a new ground in defence of the order appealed against. It has
been so held by the Supreme Court in Hukam Chand Mills Ltd. v.
CIT of the report it was held that even assuming that Rule 27 is
not strictly applicable, the Tribunal has inherent powers under
Section 254(1) to entertain the argument of the respondent
which amounted to a new ground. It was further held by the
Supreme Court as follows:
New India Life Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Excess ... on 12 February, 1957
It is significant to note that in the case before the Supreme
Court, the department which was the respondent sought to raise
a new plea in defence of the order appealed against. Earlier, in
New India Life Assurance Co. Ltd. v. CIT , the Bombay High Court
while pointing out the difference between an appellant and
respondent before the appellate court, observed at page 55 that
9
10
ITA No. 6010/Del/2013
the respondent "may support the decision of the trial court, not
only on the ground contained in the judgment of the trial court,
but on any other ground".
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Gilbert & Barker Manufacturing Co., ... on 8 December, 1976
In CIT v. Gilbert and
Barkar Mfg. Co. , the Bombay High Court made no distinction
between the appellant and respondent in an appeal before the
Tribunal and held that both were entitled to raise new points or
contentions subject only to the condition firstly that no new
facts are required to be brought on record is capable of being
disposed of on the facts on record and secondly that an
opportunity is given to the other side to meet that point which
is allowed to be raised for the first time in the appeal. This was
also a case of the respondent. To the same effect are the
decisions of the Allahabad, Gauhati, Kerala and Gujarat High
Courts cited on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, whether it is
the appellant or the respondent before the Tribunal, new points
or contentions can be raised provided they did not involve
investigation into facts (as contrasted with the record) and that
10
11
ITA No. 6010/Del/2013
an opportunity is given to the other side to meet the
contentions. Applying these principles to the present case, we
overrule the preliminary objection of the Ld. Sr. DR and permit
the assessee to raise the new points before us as a respondent."
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Mohair Investment And Trading ... on 6 March, 2014
15. While we consider the legal objection of the assessee
that the impugned penalty order is time barred, then from
the facts as we have already note hereinabove, it is apparent
that the Tribunal passed order on 23.12.2011 which was
received by the Commissioner [Judicial] dated 23.4.2012 and
15
16
ITA No. 6010/Del/2013
the penalty order has been passed on 30.10.2012 i.e. within six
months from the end of the month in which the Commissioner
receiv ed copy of the order of the T ribunal which provoked the AO
to initiate penalty proceedings. Thus, we are unable to agree
with the legal con tention of the ld. AR that the impugned penalty
is time barred. Our above noted conclusion also g ets strength
from the decision of Hon'ble Hig h Court of Delhi in the case of
CIT Vs. Mohair Investment reported as 345 ITR 51 [Del].