ACIT, New Delhi V. M/s. D.D. Industries Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3777/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1293 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-01-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 27-11-2012
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 05-08-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUSAN D GEORGE
• Assessee Lawyers: P N MONGA
• Keywords: Period of limitation

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : B NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM AND SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JM ITA NO. 3777/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 ACIT, CIRCLE 1 VS. D.D. INDUSTRIES LTD. NEW DELHI F-1/9, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA PHASE I NEW DELHI PAN:AAACD0148D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:- MS. SUSAN D GEORGE, SR. D.R. RESPONDENT BY:- SH.P.N.MONGA & MANU MONGA, ADV. O R D E R PER J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE DIRECTED A GAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-III, NEW DELHI DATED 3.5.2011 PERTAI NING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS. 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT THE PENALTY IMPOSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) IN THIS CASE IS BAR RED BY LIMITATION. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW IN PLACING RELIANCE ON THE PROVISO TO S.275(1)(A) IGNORING THE MAIN SECTION ITSELF. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE PROVISO TO S.275(1)(A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DOES NOT NU LLIFY THE AVAILABILITY OF THE PERIOD OF THE LIMITATION OF SIX MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH WHEN THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IS RECE IVED BY THE CIT IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF RAYALA CORPORATION P.LTD. VS UOI (2007) 288 ITR 452 (MAD.). ITA NO. 3777/DEL/2011 PAGE 2 OF 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 ACIT VS. DD INDUSTRIES LTD. 4. THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS AND IS NOT TENABLE ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 2. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HEARD. ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERA TION OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND A PERUSAL OF THE PAPE RS ON RECORD AND THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE HOLD AS FOLLO WS. 3. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS ERRED IN HOLDI NG THAT THE PENALTY ORDER IN QUESTION HAS BEEN PASSED BEYOND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDING S HAS PASSED HIS ORDER ON 16.1.2002. THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 271(1) (C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WAS PASSED ON 27 TH FEBRUARY, 2009. THE ITAT HAD PASSED AN ORDER IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS ON 4 TH JULY,2008 AND ADMITTEDLY IT WAS RECEIVED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CIT ON 6.8.2008. OB VIOUSLY THE PENALTY ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM THE RE CEIPT OF THE ITAT ORDER WHICH IS WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED UNDER SEC TION 275 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE PROVISO TO S.275(1)(A), DOES NOT IN ANY WAY PLACE RESTRICTION ON THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION PRESC RIBED IN S.275(1)(A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. IT WAS SO HELD BY THE HO NBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RAYALA CORPORATION P.LTD. VS U OI, 288 ITR 425. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE SET ASIDE THE O RDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ON THE ISSUE OF LIMITATION. 4. AS THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS NOT ADJUDIC ATED THE ISSUE ON MERITS, WE RESTORE THE MATTER TO HIS FILE FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION ON MERITS. ITA NO. 3777/DEL/2011 PAGE 3 OF 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 ACIT VS. DD INDUSTRIES LTD. 5. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 4 TH JANUARY, 2013. SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (J.SUDHAKAR R EDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R DATED: THE 4 TH JANUARY, 2013 *MANGA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT; 2.RESPONDENT; 3.CIT; 4.CIT (A); 5.DR; 6.GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR