Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.18 seconds)Section 263 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 264 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 246A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 246 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 253 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Tarlochan Singh And Sons (Huf) vs Income Tax Officer on 21 September, 2007
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.
Rayala Corporation P. Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 5 April, 2006
The CIT(A) observed that section 275 itself was
the substantive part of the Act and that the assessee had filed an appeal
before the Tribunal. As per the C IT(A) the Assessing Officer had within
his right passed the order within six months from receipt of the order of
the Tribunal. The CIT(A) also noted that the assessee himself had
pleaded before the Assessing Officer that the penalt y proceedings be kept
in abeyance till the order of the Tribunal. Further reliance was placed b y
CIT(A) on the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Rayala
Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI (161 Taxman 127). Accordingl y, it was
held by the CIT(A) that the Assessing Officer had started the penalt y
proceedings within the prescribed time and the Ground of appeal raised b y
the assessee was dismissed. The assessee is in appeal against the order
of the C IT(A) in this regard.