M/s Brinsar Foods Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh V. DCIT, Chandigarh

ITSSA 1/CHANDI/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8913 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 11-06-2019
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 03-01-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHISH ABORL CIT DR
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Time period of passing order; Set aside
• Section: 260A; 250; 246

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, A, CHANDIGARH . . , , BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ IT(SS) NO. 01/CHD/2019 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-02 M/S BRINSAR FOODS PVT LTD., SCO 80-81, SECTOR 17 C, CHANDIGARH VS. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, CHANDIGARH ! ' ./ PAN NO: AAACB6742K !#/ APPELLANT %& !# / RESPONDENT '()* /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI T.N SINGLA, CA )* / REVENUE BY : SHRI ASHISH ABORL, CIT DR + ,)( -' /DATE OF HEARING : 11.06.2019 ./ )( -' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.07.2019 / ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.11.2018 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS )- 3, GURGAON [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)] AGITAT ING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 158 BFA(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- ITA NO. 01-CHD/2019 M/S SAMRAT PLYWOOD LTD., CHANDIGARH 2 1. THAT THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IS BAD, AGAINST THE FACTS AND LAW. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY UPHELD THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 158BFA(2) OF THE ACT AFTER THE EXPIRY OF LIMITATION PERIOD. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY UPHELD THE PENALTY LEVIED OF RS. 5,42,400/- U/S 158BFA(2) OF THE ACT. 3. VIDE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINLY AGITATED THE VALIDITY OF THE PENALTY BEING LEVIED AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE LIMITATION PERIOD AS PROVIDED U/S 158 BFA(3)(C) OF THE I.T. AC T. 4. SO FAR AS THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION RELATING TO T HE LEVY OF PENALTY IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTED THAT PEN ALTY U/S 158BFA(2) R.W.S 274 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 WAS INITIATED AND NOTICE U/S 274 R.W.S. 158BFA(2) WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 29.0 7.2002. THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE KEPT IN ABEYANCE TILL THE DISPOSAL OF APPEAL BY THE ITAT. AFTER THE RECEIPT OF THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 14.02.2017 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. NO REP LY WAS FILED IN RESPONSE THERETO. AS NO REPLY WAS RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEE TO THIS NOTICE, IT WAS FOLLOWED BY REMINDER DATED 11.04.201 7. IN RESPONSE TO REMINDER, THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED FOR DROPPING OF P ENALTY U/S 158BFA(2) VIDE WRITTEN REPLY FILED ON 19.04.2017. FURTHER, T HE ASSESSEE PLEADED THAT THE ORDER DATED 28.4.2017 WAS BARRED BY LIMITA TION BEING HIT BY THE PROVISION OF SECTION 158BFA(3)(C) OF THE ACT. IT W AS PLEADED THAT THE ITAT HAD DECIDED THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT ON 19 .9.2014 AND THE ITA NO. 01-CHD/2019 M/S SAMRAT PLYWOOD LTD., CHANDIGARH 3 ORDER OF THE ITAT WAS RECEIVED BY THE DEPARTMENT DU RING THE F.Y.2014- 15, HOWEVER, THE PENALTY WAS LEVIED BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER VIDE ORDER DATED 28.4.2017 WHICH WAS AFTER COMPLETION OF THE T WO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE ORDER OF THE ITAT WAS RECEIVED BY THE DEPARTMENT, WHEREAS, AS PER THE LIMITATION PER IOD PRESCRIBED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BFA(3)(C) OF THE ACT, THE PENALTY ORDER WAS TO BE PASSED BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF SIX MONTHS F ROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE ORDER OF THE ITAT WAS RECEIVED B Y THE PRINCIPAL CIT / COMMISSIONER. 5. FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BFA(3)(C) ARE REPRODUCED S UNDER:- 158BFA (3) NO ORDER IMPOSING A PENALTY UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) SHALL BE MADE, . (C) IN A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSMENT IS THE SUBJECT -MATTER OF AN APPEAL TO THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) UNDER SECTION 246 OR SECTION 246A OR AN APPEAL TO T HE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SECTION 253, AFTER THE EXP IRY OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE PROCEEDINGS, IN THE COURSE OF WHICH ACTION FOR THE IMPOSITION OF PENALT Y HAS BEEN INITIATED, ARE COMPLETED, OR SIX MONTHS FR OM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IS RECEIVED BY THE PRINCIPAL CHI EF COMMISSIONER OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER, WHICHEVER PERIOD EXPIRES LATE. 6. NOW THE QUESTION FOR DETERMINATION IN THIS CASE IS AS TO ON WHAT DATE THE ORDER OF THE ITAT WAS RECEIVED BY THE CONC ERNED PRINCIPAL ITA NO. 01-CHD/2019 M/S SAMRAT PLYWOOD LTD., CHANDIGARH 4 COMMISSIONER / COMMISSIONER, AS THE CASE MAY BE. A SPECIFIC QUESTION WAS ASKED TO THE LD. DR VIDE ORDER DATED 27.5.201 9, WHEREUPON, THE LD. DR PRODUCED THE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 6.6.2 019 OF THE CONCERNED ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), CHANDIGARH / ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH READS AS UNDER:- GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT ` O/O. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, ROOM NO. 414, 4 TH FLOOR, SECTOR-17-E, CHANDIGARH F. NO.ACIT/C-2( 1 )/CHD/2019-20/ DATED: 06.06.2019 TO THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (DR-2) ITAT, C HANDIGARH SIR, SUB:- APPEAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. BRINSAR FOODS PVT . LTD., SCO 80-81, SECTOR- 17C, CHANDIGARH IN ITSS NO.L/CHD/2019 FOR A .Y.2001- 02 (B.P. 1990-91 TO 1999-2000) - REGARDING. REF:- LETTER OF ITO(HQ)(JUDL.), CHANDIGARH DATED 03 .06.2019 -OOO- IN THE REFERENCE TO SUBJECT MATTER & YOUR OFFICE LE TTER DATED 23.05.2019. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT FROM THE PERUSAL OF RECORDS, I T IS OBSERVED THAT ON 30.07.2002, DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1), CHANDIGARH COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, ON 24.11.2006, LD. C IT(A), CHANDIGARH VIDE APPEAL NO. 280/P/02-03 PASSED ORDER U/S 250 OF I.T. ACT, 1961. AGAINST THIS ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), DCIT, CIRCLE4(L), CHANDIGARH U NDER THE CHARGE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH-II FILED APP EAL BEFORE HON'BLE ITAT, CHANDIGARH ON 02.02.2007. HON'BLE ITAT PRONOUNCED ORDER IN IT(SS)A NO.6/CHD/2 007 IN THE CASE OF ABOVE MENTIONED ASSESSEE ON 19.09.2014. THE ORDE R OF HON'BLE ITAT WAS RECEIVED FOR THE FIRST TIME BY O/O. THE PR. CIT-1, CHANDIGARH ON 08.01.2015. HOWEVER, ON 20.01.2015, O/O. THE PR.CIT-L , CHANDIGARH RETURNED THE ORDER ITA NO. 01-CHD/2019 M/S SAMRAT PLYWOOD LTD., CHANDIGARH 5 BACK TO O/O. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT. CHANDIG ARH WITH A REQUEST TO DISPATCH THE ORDERS TO RESPECTIVE OFFICE AS THE CAS E OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FALL UNDER ITS JURISDICTION. (COPY OF LETTER IS ATTACHED AS ANNEXURE-1). ON 27.10.2016, O/O. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH, REQUESTED O/O. THE PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH TO SEND THE ORDERS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE DIRECTLY TO THE CONCERNED JURISDICTIONAL C IT UNDER THE INTIMATION OF HIS OFFICE. (COPY OF LETTER IS ATTACHED AS ANNEXURE -2). ON 27.10.2016, O/O. THE PR. CIT-1, CHANDIGARH FORWARDED THE COPY OF ORDER I N THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE PR.CIT(CENTRAL), GURGAON. (COPY OF LETTER IS ATTACHED AS ANNEXURE-3). FURTHER, FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE RECORDS, IT IS ALS O OBSERVED THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS CENTRALIZED WITH ACIT, CEN TRAL CIRCLE-II VIDE ORDER U/S 127 OF I.T. ACT. 1961 DATED 22.09.2010. PENALTY ORDER U/S 158BFA(2) OF I.T. ACT, 1961 WAS P ASSED BY THEN DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, CHANDIGARH ON 28.04.2017 ( COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE IS ATTACHED AS ANNEXURE-4). FOR ANY CLARIFICATION UNDERSIGNED MAY BE CONTACTED AT 9463063842. YOURS FAITHFULLY, SD/- (ABHINAV AGNIHOTRI) ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1), CHANDIGARH 7. A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE REPLY REVEALS THAT THE IT AT HAD PRONOUNCED THE ORDER IN THE QUANTUM APPEAL ON 19.9.2014 AND TH E ORDER OF THE ITAT WAS RECEIVED IN THE OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIT-1, CHANDIGARH ON 8.1.2015, HOWEVER, THE SAME WAS RETURNED BACK BY T HE OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIT-1, CHANDIGARH ON 20.1.2015 WITH A REQ UEST TO DISPATCH THE ORDER TO THE RESPECTIVE OFFICE AS THE JURISDICTION DID NOT LIE WITH THE PRINCIPAL CIT-I, CHANDIGARH . A COPY OF THE SAID LE TTER DATED 19.1.2015 OF THE CONCERNED DCIT (HQ) (JUD.), OFFICE OF CIT-1 CHANDIGARH IN THIS RESPECT HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE FILE AS ANNEXURE-I. ITA NO. 01-CHD/2019 M/S SAMRAT PLYWOOD LTD., CHANDIGARH 6 A PERUSAL OF THE SAID LETTER REVEALS THAT THE CONC ERNED OFFICER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I EVEN DID NOT MENTI ON AS TO THE OFFICE OF WHICH PRINCIPAL CIT / COMMISSIONER, THE JURISDIC TION IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED. THE ITAT VIDE LETTER DATED 27.1.2016 POINTED OUT THIS FACT TO THE CIT-I AND REQUESTED TH AT THE COPY OF THE ORDER BE SENT TO THE CONCERNED JURISDICTIONAL CIT. THEREAFTER, THE ORDERS WERE SENT BY THE OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIT -I TO THE OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIT (CENTRAL). IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT CHANGE OF JURISDICTION OF THE CONCERNED CIT / PRINCIPAL CIT WAS THE INTERNAL MATTER OF THE DEPARTMENT. NO INTIMATION WAS GIVEN T O THE TRIBUNAL OR PLACED ON THE FILE REGARDING THE CHANGE OF JURISDIC TION OF THE PRINCIPAL CIT. THE OFFICE OF THE ITAT CHANDIGARH SENT THE OR DERS TO THE CONCERNED PRINCIPAL CIT AS PER THE INFORMATION REGA RDING THE JURISDICTION AVAILABLE ON THE FILE / FORM 36. 8. NOW THE QUESTION IS THAT WHETHER THE LIMITATION WOULD START RUN FROM THE ITAT HAD SENT THE ORDER TO THE PRINCIPAL CIT WITH WHOM THE JURISDICTION LIED AS PER THE RECORD, THOUGH WAS TRA NSFERRED LATER ON TO ANOTHER PRINCIPAL CIT. THE IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN DETAIL BY THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT -7 VS ODEON BUILDERS PVT LTD. VIDE ORDER DATED 24.3.2017 PASS ED IN ITA NO. 52/2015, CM APPL 23522/2015 AND OTHERS. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT FRAMED EIGHT QUESTIONS IN THIS RESPECT AND AFTER DE TAILED DISCUSSION ANSWERED THE SAID EIGHT QUESTIONS AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 01-CHD/2019 M/S SAMRAT PLYWOOD LTD., CHANDIGARH 7 Q: (I) WHAT IS THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION TO BE PLACED ON THE EXPRESSION 'RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE OR THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER' IN SECTION 260A (2) (A) OF THE ACT? DOES IT MEAN 'RECEIVED' BY ANY OF THE NAMED OFFICERS INCLUDING THE CIT (JUDICIAL)? ANS: THE WORD RECEIVED OCCURRING IN SECTION 260A (2) (A) WOULD MEAN RECEIVED BY ANY OF THE NAMED OFFICERS OF THE DEPARTMENT, INCLUDING CIT (JUDICIAL). THE PROVISION AT PRESENT NAMES FOUR PARTICULAR OFFICERS I.E. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER , COMMISSIONER, PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER, AND THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. THESE ARE THE ONLY DESIGNATIONS OF THE OFFICERS WHO COULD RECEIVE A COPY OF THE ORDER. IN THE ABSENCE OF A QUALIFYING PREFIX CONCERNED , THE RECEIPT OF A COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ITAT BY ANY OF THOSE OFFICERS I N THE DEPARTMENT INCLUDING THE CIT (JUDICIAL) WILL TRIGGER THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. Q: (II) DOES LIMITATION BEGIN TO RUN FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 260A (2) (A) ONLY WHEN A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IS RECEIVED BY THE 'CONCERNED' CIT WITHIN WHOSE JURISDICTION THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FALLS NOTWITHSTANDING THAT IT MAY HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY ANY OTHER CIT, INCLUDING THE CIT (JUDICIAL) PRIOR THERETO? IS IT OPEN TO THE COURT TO READ THE WORD 'CONCERNED' INTO SECTION 260 A (2) (A) OF THE ACT A S A PREFIX TO ANY OF THE OFFICERS OF THE DEPARTMENT NAMED THEREIN? ANS: IN SECTION 260A (2) OF THE ACT, THE WORDS CIT, PR CIT OR CHIEF CIT ARE NOT PREFIXED OR QUALIFIED BY THE WORD 'CONCERNED'. THER E IS NO WARRANT FOR THE COURT TO READ INTO THE PROVISION SUCH A QUALIFYING WORD. THE COURT REJECTS THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT LIMITATION FOR T HE PURPOSES OF SECTION 260A(2) (A) BEGINS TO RUN ONLY WHEN A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IS RECEIVED BY THE 'CONCERNED' CIT WITHIN WHOSE JURISDICTION THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FALLS NOTWITHSTANDING THAT IT MAY HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY ANY OTHER CIT, INCLUDING THE CIT (JUDICIAL) PRIOR THERETO. ITA NO. 01-CHD/2019 M/S SAMRAT PLYWOOD LTD., CHANDIGARH 8 Q: (III) IN THE CONTEXT OF SECTION 254 (3) OF THE A CT, IS THERE AN OBLIGATION ON THE ITAT TO SEND A CERTIFIED COPY OF ITS ORDER TO A CIT OTHER THAN THE ONE WHOSE DETAILS ARE GIVEN TO IT DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE APPEAL? WILL CHANGE IN THE JURISDICTION CONCERNING THE CASE OF THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE TO ANOTHER CIT SUBSEQUENT TO THE ORDER OF THE ITAT HAVE THE EFFECT OF POSTPONING THE TIME, FROM WHICH LIMITATION WOULD BEGIN TO RUN IN TERMS OF SECTION 260 A (2) (A) OF THE ACT, TO WHEN SUCH CIT RECEIVES THE ORDER OF THE ITAT? ANS: AS FAR AS THE OBLIGATION OF THE ITAT UNDER SECTION 254 (3) OF THE ACT IS CONCERNED, THE SAID OBLIGATION IS SATISFIED ONCE THE ITAT SENDS A COPY OF AN ORDER PASSED BY IT TO THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS TO THE PR CIT OR THE CIT OR EVEN THE CIT (JUDICIAL). THE ITAT HAS TO BE SIMPLY GO BY THE DETAILS AS PROVIDED TO IT IN THE MEMO OF PARTIES. I F THERE IS A CHANGE CONCERNING THE JURISDICTION OF TH E CIT AND IT IS SOME OTHER CIT WHO HAS JURISDICTION, IT WILL NOT HAVE THE EFFECT OF POSTPONING THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION IN TERMS OF SECTION 260A (2) (A) OF THE ACT. THE STATUTE IS NOT CONCERNED WITH THE INTERNAL ARRANGEMENTS THAT THE DEPARTMENT MAY MAKE BY CHANGING THE JURISDICTION OF ITS OFFICERS. IT IS FOR THE OFFICER OF THE DEPAR TMENT WHO FIRST RECEIVES A COPY OF THE ITAT S ORDER TO REACH IT IN TIME TO THE OFFICER WHO HAS TO TAKE A DECISION REGARDING THE FILING OF AN APPEAL. Q: (IV) AFTER THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN CIT V. SUDHIR CHOUDHRIE (2005) 278 ITR 490, DO THE DECISIONS IN CIT V. ARVIND CONSTRUCTION CO. (P.) LTD. (1992) 193 ITR 330 AND CIT V. ITAT (2000) 245 ITR 659 (DEL) REQUIRE TO BE RECONSIDERED, EXPLAINED OR RECONCILED? ANS: THE DECISIONS IN CIT V. ARVIND CONSTRUCTION CO. (SUPRA) AND CIT V. ITAT (SUPRA) WERE RENDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF SECTION 256 OF THE ACT (AND NOT SECTION 260 A (2) (A) OF THE ACT) AND ALSO PRIOR TO THE DECISION IN CIT V. SUDHIR CHOUDHRIE (SUPRA). WHILE THE FORMER DECISIONS MAY NOT REQUIRE RECONSIDERATION, THEY REQUIRE TO BE RECONCILED WITH THE LATTER DECISION IN CIT V. SUDHIR ITA NO. 01-CHD/2019 M/S SAMRAT PLYWOOD LTD., CHANDIGARH 9 CHOUDHRIE(SUPRA). THE DECISIONS IN CIT V. ARVIND CONSTRUCTION CO. (SUPRA) AND CIT V. ITAT (SUPRA) ARE OF NO ASSISTANCE TO THE REVENUE IN ITS INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 260 A (2) (A) OF THE ACT. Q: (V) AFTER THE CHANGE OF PROCEDURE WHERE ORDERS OF THE ITAT ARE PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN, IS IT INCUMBENT ON THE DEPARTMENT THROUGH ITS DR OR CIT (JUDICIAL) TO APPLY FOR A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORD ER OF THE ITAT AND SHOULD LIMITATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 260A (2) (A) BE COMPUTED FROM THE DATE ON WHICH SUCH CERTIFIED COPY IS MADE READY FOR DELIVERY BY THE ITAT? ANS: WHILE THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT FOR THE DR OR CIT (JUDICIAL) TO APPLY FOR A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ITAT, IN ANY EVENT UNDER THE EXTANT ITAT RULES, A COPY OF THE ORDER IS SENT TO THE CIT (JUDICIAL). IN THE CONTEXT OF SECTION 260A(2)(A) OF THE ACT, ONCE AN ORDER IS LISTED FOR PRONOUNCEMENT IN THE ITAT, THE DR OR THE CIT (JUDICIAL) SHOULD BE TAKEN TO BE AWARE OF THE ORDER. FROM THAT POINT, IT IS A PURELY AN INTERNAL ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENT AS TO HOW THE DR OR CIT (JUDICIAL) OBTAINS AND FURTHER COMMUNICATES THE ORDER TO THE OFFICER WHO HAS TO TAKE A DECISION ON FILING THE APPEAL. IT IS POSSIBL E THAT IMMEDIATELY AFTER PRONOUNCEMENT, THE AR OR THE DR OR BOTH MAY APPLY FOR A CERTIFIED COPY OF TH E ORDER OF THE ITAT. IN THAT CASE, THE TIME TAKEN FOR THE CERTIFIED COPY TO BE READIED FOR COLLECTION BY THE APPLICANT WILL BE EXCLUDED WHILE COMPUTING LIMITATION. BUT HERE AGAIN, IF EARLIER TO SUCH DATE , A COPY IS RECEIVED BY A PARTY FROM THE ITAT, THEN SUCH EARLIER DATE WILL BE THE STARTING POINT FOR LIMITATION. Q: (VI) WHETHER THE RECEIPT OF A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ITAT BY THE CIT (JUDICIAL) IS SUFFICIENT TO TRIGGER THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE LIMITATION PERIOD UNDER SECTION 260 A (2) (A) OF TH E ACT? ANS: THE RECEIPT OF A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER O F THE ITAT BY CIT (JUDICIAL) WOULD TRIGGER THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE LIMITATION PERIOD UNDER SECTION 260 A (2) (A) OF THE ACT. ITA NO. 01-CHD/2019 M/S SAMRAT PLYWOOD LTD., CHANDIGARH 10 Q: (VII) IN THE CONTEXT OF A COMMON ORDER OF THE ITAT COVERING SEVERAL APPEALS, WHETHER LIMITATION FOR ALL THE APPEALS WOULD BEGIN TO RUN WHEN THE CERTIFIED COPY IS RECEIVED FIRST BY EITHER THE CIT (JUDICIAL) OR ANY ONE OF THE OFFICERS OF THE DEPARTMENT MENTIONED IN SECTION 260 A (2) (A) OR ONLY WHEN THE CIT 'CONCERNED' RECEIVES IT? WHERE THE SAME CIT HAS JURISDICTION OVER MORE THAN ONE ASSESSEE IN THE BATCH, WILL LIMITATION BEGIN TO RUN FOR ALL SUCH APPEALS WHEN SUCH CIT RECEIVES THE ORDER IN EITHER OF THE ASSESSEE'S CASES? ANS: WHERE THERE, IS A COMMON ORDER OF THE ITAT COVERING THE SEVERAL APPEALS, LIMITATION WOULD BEGIN TO RUN WHEN A CERTIFIED COPY IS RECEIVED FIRS T BY EITHER THE CIT (JUDICIAL) OR ONE OF THE OFFICERS OF THE DEPARTMENT AND NOT ONLY WHEN THE CIT CONCERNED RECEIVES IT. WHEN THE SAME CIT HAS JURISDICTION FOR MORE THAN ONE ASSESSEE, THE LIMITATION BEGIN TO RUN FOR ALL FROM THE EARLIEST O F THE DATES WHEN THE DR OF CIT (JUDICIAL) OR ANY CIT FIRST RECEIVES THE ORDER IN ANY OF THE CASES FORMIN G PART OF THE BATCH DISPOSED OF BY THE COMMON ORDER. IF THERE ARE FOUR SEPARATE ORDERS PASSED, THEN THE LIMITATION BEGINS TO RUN WHEN SUCH SEPARATE ORDERS ARE RECEIVED FIRST BY ANY OFFICER OF THE DEPARTMENT . Q: (VIII) WHETHER ADMINISTRATIVE INSTRUCTIONS ISSUE D BY THE DEPARTMENT FOR ITS OWN ADMINISTRATIVE CONVENIENCE CAN HAVE THE EFFECT OF ALTERING THE TIM E FROM WHICH LIMITATION WILL BEGIN TO RUN FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 260 A (2) (A) OF THE ACT? ANS: INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT FOR ITS ADMINISTRATIVE CONVENIENCE CANNOT ALTER THE TIME WHEN LIMITATION WOULD BEGIN TO RUN UNDER SECTION 260A (2) (A) OF THE ACT. TO REITERATE THESE ADMINISTRATIVE INSTRUCTIONS ARE FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONVENIENCE OF THE DEPARTMENT AND WILL NOT OVERRIDE THE STATUTE, IN PARTICULAR, SECTI ON 260A (2) (A) OF THE ACT. 9. IN VIEW OF THE ANSWER TO QUESTION NO.(III) OF TH E HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT, WHEREIN, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT ONCE T HE ITAT SENDS A COPY ITA NO. 01-CHD/2019 M/S SAMRAT PLYWOOD LTD., CHANDIGARH 11 OF AN ORDER TO THE PRINCIPAL CIT / CIT AND EVEN THE CIT (JUDICIAL), GOING BY THE DETAILS AS PROVIDED TO IT IN THE MEMO OF PARTIES AND EVEN IF, THEREFORE, THERE IS A CHANGE CONCERNING THE JU RISDICTION OF THE CIT, IT WILL NOT HAVE THE EFFECT OF POSTPONING THE COMMENCI NG OF THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION IN TERMS OF SECTION 260A(2)(A) OF THE A CT. THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT WHILE FURTHER ANSWERING THE QUESTION NO. (VII) HAS HELD THAT WHERE THERE IS A COMMON ORDER OF THE ITAT COVERING THE SEVERAL APPEALS, THE LIMITATION WOULD BEGIN TO RUN WHEN A C ERTIFIED COPY IS RECEIVED FIRST BY EITHER THE CIT (JUDICIAL) OR ONE OF THE OFFICERS OF THE DEPARTMENT AND NOT ONLY WHEN THE CIT CONCERNED RECE IVES IT. THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE AFORESAID DECISION OF TH E HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT. THE PENALTY ORDER IN THIS CASE HAS BEEN PASS ED BEYOND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION, HENCE, THE SAME IS VOID AB INITIO AN D THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10.02.2019. SD/- SD/- ( . . / N.K. SAINI) ( / SANJAY GARG) !'# / VICE PRESIDENT $% / JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 10.07.2019 .. 1)%(2343( / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. !# / THE APPELLANT 2. %& !# / THE RESPONDENT 3. + 5( / CIT 4. + 5( ( )/ THE CIT(A) ITA NO. 01-CHD/2019 M/S SAMRAT PLYWOOD LTD., CHANDIGARH 12 5. 36 %(7 , - 7 , 89:; / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. :< , / GUARD FILE 1 + / BY ORDER, = / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR