Dr. Pankaj Khullar, Solan V. ITO, W-2, Shimla

ITA 1488/CHANDI/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4083 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-10-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 21-10-2020
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 19-11-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Time period of passing order; Set aside
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, B, CHANDIGARH , ! '# $ % & '# , () BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 1488/CHD/2019 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 DR. PANKAJ KHULLAR VILL. ANJI NASAL BAROG BYE PASS ROAD, DISTT. SOLAN H.P. ITO, WARD - 2, SHIMLA ./PAN NO: AFFPK4385N / APPELLANT /RESPONDENT HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING ! /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI Y.K. SUD ,CA ' ! / REVENUE BY : SMT. MEENAKSHI VOHRA, ADDL. CIT # $ % /DATE OF HEARING : 21.10..2020 &'() % / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.10.2020 (* / ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.08.2019 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS)-2, AMRITSAR. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL HAS AGITATED THE LE VY OF PENALTY OF RS. 33,218/- IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TA X ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). 2 ITA NO. 1488-C-2019 DR.PANKAJ KHULLAR, SOLAN 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER WHICH IS DATED 23.12.2010. THE LD. COUNSEL HAS FURT HER INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, WHEREIN, IT HAS BEEN SPECIFIC ALLY MENTIONED THAT A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WAS IS SUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 28.2.2013 FIXING THE CASE FOR HEARING ON 7.3.2013. THE LD. COUNSEL HAS FURTHER INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO TH E RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 275 OF THE ACT, WHICH READS A S UNDER:- BAR OF LIMITATION FOR IMPOSING PENALTIES. SECTION 275 (1) NO ORDER IMPOSING A PENALTY UNDER THIS CHAP TER SHALL BE PASSED .. (C) IN ANY OTHER CASE, AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE FI NANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE PROCEEDINGS, IN THE COURSE OF WHICH ACTION FOR THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY HAS BEEN INITIATED, ARE COMPLETED, OR SI X MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH ACTION FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IS INITIATED, WHICHEVER PERIOD EXPIRES LATER. THE LD. COUNSEL HAS FURTHER INVITED OUR ATTENTION T O THE CONTENTS OF THE PENALTY ORDER, WHEREIN, IT HAS BEEN SPECIFICALL Y MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ITSELF. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE PENALTY ORDER WHICH IS OTHERWISE UNDATED BUT CERTAINLY HAS BEEN P ASSED AFTER 8.3.2013, THOUGH A NUMBER AND DATE I.E. 21.3.2013 H AS BEEN MENTIONED SEPARATELY ON COPY OF THE ORDER, IS BEYON D THE PERIOD OF 3 ITA NO. 1488-C-2019 DR.PANKAJ KHULLAR, SOLAN LIMITATION AS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE RELEVANT PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 275 OF THE ACT, AS REPRODUCED ABOVE. 4. THE LD. DR ALSO COULD NOT REBUT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PENALTY ORDER WAS PASSED BEYOND LIMITATION PERIOD AS PRESCRIBED U/S 275 OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE PENALTY ORDER IS BAD BEING B ARRED BY LIMITATION, AND THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS HEREB Y ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 21.10.2020. SD/- SD/- ( $ % & '# / ANNAPURNA GUPTA) () / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( / SANJAY GARG) / JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 21.10.2020 .. '+ ,-.- / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. # / / CIT 4. # / ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. -01 2 , %2 , 34516 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 157$ / GUARD FILE '+ # / BY ORDER, 8 ' / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR