DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Dangson Hotel & Restaurants Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2668/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 74361 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 13-03-2014
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 31-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MORA BHUPAL REDDY
• Assessee Lawyers: AK JAIN CA PAGE OF

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : B NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J.SUDHAKAR REDD Y, AM AND SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JM ITA NO. 4438/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03 DCIT, CIRCLE 10(1) VS. M/S DANGSON HOTEL & RESTAU RANTS P.LTD. NEW DELHI B 28, LAWRANCE ROAD NEW DELHI PAN: AAACD 9744 M C.O. 23/DEL/2013 (IN ITA NO. 4438/DEL/2012) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03 M/S DANGSON HOTEL & RESTAURANTS P.LTD. VS. DCIT, CI RCLE 10(1) NEW DELHI NEW DELHI ITA NOS. 2667, 2668, 2669, 2670, 2671/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2001-02 TO 2006-07 DCIT, CIRCLE 10(1) VS. M/S DANGSON HOTEL & RESTAU RANTS P.LTD. NEW DELHI B 28, LAWRANCE ROAD NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:- SHRI MORA BHUPAL REDDY, CIT, DR RESPONDENT BY:- SHRI AK JAIN, CA PAGE 2 OF 5 O R D E R PER BENCH ALL THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE AND ARE DIRECTED AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LD.CIT, NEW DELHI FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 TO 2006-07. 2. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED A C.O. NO.23/DEL/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. 3. THE SHORT POINT FOR CONSIDERATION IN THESE APPEALS , IS WHETHER PENALTY ORDER PASSED U/S 271(1)(C ) OF THE ACT, IS BARRED B Y LIMITATION. 3.1 . THE DATES AND EVENTS WHICH ARE IMPORTANT ARE AS F OLLOWS:- THE ITAT HAS DISPOSED OFF THE QUANTUM APPEAL ON 30. 4.2010. THE SAME WAS RECEIVED IN THE OFFICE OF LD.CIT, CENTRAL II, NEW DELHI ON 19.7.2010. THE ORDER U/S 271(1)(C ) WAS PASSED ON 28.2.2011, WHICH IS BE YOND THE PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE ORDER OF THE ITAT BY THE CIT, CENTRAL II. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE ISSUE OF LIMITATION, B EFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CONTENTION BY HO LDING THAT THE ORDER OF THE ITAT WAS RECEIVED BY CIT-IV, ON 30.9.2010 AND THAT AFTER DECENTRALIZATION, THE CIT-IV IS THE JURISDICTIONAL CIT. ON APPEAL THE FI RST APPELLATE AUTHORITY UPHELD THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ORDER OF PE NALTY IS BARRED BY LIMITATION. 4. AGGRIEVED THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. PAGE 3 OF 5 5. THE LD.D.R. SUBMITTED THAT INITIALLY THESE GROUP C ASES WERE NOTIFIED FOR BEING ASSESSED CENTRALLY UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF CIT(CENTRAL)-II, NEW DELHI. THEREAFTER THE CCIT HAS PASSED AN ORDER U/S 127 OF THE ACT ON 28.5.2010, DECENTRALIZING THE CASES FROM THE CENTRAL CIRCLE. DUE TO A MISTAKE THESE GROUP OF CASES, DID NOT FIND PLACE IN THIS NOTIFICATION O F DECENTRALIZATION AND THE CCIT PASSED A CORRIGENDUM ON 17.9.2010 INCLUDING THESE G ROUP OF CASES. HE ARGUED THAT THE CORRIGENDUM RELATES BACK TO 28.5.20 10 I.E. THE DATE OF ORDER PASSED U/S 127. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT CONSEQUENT TO DECENTRALIZATION THE JURISDICTIONAL COMMISSIONER, IS NOT CIT, CENTRAL II , BUT IS CIT-IV AND THAT THE CIT-IV RECEIVED THE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ITAT ONLY ON 30.9.2010 AND CONSEQUENTLY AN ORDER U/S 271(1)(C) PASSED ON 28 .2.2011 IS WITHIN TIME. 6. THIS CONTENTION OF THE LD.D.R. CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. PRIOR TO PASSING OF THE CORRIGENDUM BY THE CCIT TO HIS ORDER U/S 127 NO .CIT(C )-II/C&T/2011- 234 DT. 17.9.2010, THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS RECEIVED BY THE CIT, CENTRAL II, NEW DELHI ON 19.7.2010. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE LIMITATION AS PRESCRIBED IN S.275(1)(A), IS TO BE COUNTED FROM THIS DATE. T HUS, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY THAT THE PENALTY IS L EVIED IN ALL THESE CASES ARE BARRED BY LIMITATION. 7. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A PAPER BOOK RUNNING INTO P AGES 1 TO 19 TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ORDER OF THE ITAT WAS RECEIVED BY THE CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE I, NEW DELHI BEFORE THE JURISDICTION OF THE CASE WA S TRANSFERRED TO CIT-IV. HE ALSO WANTED TO DRAW THE ATTENTION OF THIS BENCH TO CERTAIN REPLIES OBTAINED IN RESPONSE TO APPLICATIONS MADE UNDER THE RIGHT TO IN FORMATION ACT. AS WE HAVE PAGE 4 OF 5 UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WE NEED NOT GO INTO THESE PAPERS. 8. IN THE RESULT ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 9. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 THERE IS A DISCUS SION ON MERITS OF THE CASE. THE CROSS OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 IS ALSO ON THE ISSUE ON MERITS. IN VIEW OF OUR ABOVE FIND THAT ALL THE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE ARE BARRED BY LIMITATION, WE WOULD NOT GO INTO THE MERITS OF THE CASE AS IT WOULD BE AN ACADEMIC EXERCISE. IN THE R ESULT, THE C.O. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 10. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR ALL THE AYS ARE DISMISSED AND THE C.O. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR AS SESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 TH MARCH, 2014. SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (J.SUDHAKAR REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R DATED: THE 13 TH MARCH, 2014 *MANGA PAGE 5 OF 5 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT; 2.RESPONDENT; 3.CIT; 4.CIT (A); 5.DR; 6.GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR