TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tax Tribunal Rules in Favor of Taxpayer on Timely Assessment & Penalty Appeal</h1> <h3>M/s. Honeywell Automation India Limited (formerly known as Tata Honeywell Limited) Versus Dy. Commisssioner of Income Tax, Circle – 7, Pune.</h3> M/s. Honeywell Automation India Limited (formerly known as Tata Honeywell Limited) Versus Dy. Commisssioner of Income Tax, Circle – 7, Pune. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Applicability of Section 153(2A) vs. Section 153(3) for passing the assessment order.2. Legality of the assessment order passed beyond the prescribed time limit.3. Legality of penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Applicability of Section 153(2A) vs. Section 153(3) for Passing the Assessment OrderThe primary issue revolves around whether the time limit for passing the assessment order should be governed by Section 153(2A) or Section 153(3) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal noted that the assessment was set aside with specific directions to the Assessing Officer (AO) to decide the issue afresh. The Tribunal held that Section 153(2A) applies when an assessment is set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh determination, as supported by the Delhi High Court's decision in Nokia India (P) Ltd. The Tribunal emphasized that for the applicability of Section 153(2A), it is not necessary for the entire assessment order to be set aside; setting aside an issue suffices.Issue 2: Legality of the Assessment Order Passed Beyond the Prescribed Time LimitThe Tribunal found that the AO passed the order giving effect to the Tribunal's directions beyond the prescribed time limit under Section 153(2A). The Tribunal noted that the order of the Tribunal was received by the Commissioner on 04.09.2012, and thus, the fresh assessment order should have been passed by 31.03.2014. Since the AO passed the order on 07.11.2014, it was held to be barred by limitation and, therefore, bad in law. This conclusion was consistent across multiple assessment years (1999-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, and 2002-03).Issue 3: Legality of Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax ActThe Tribunal examined the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2007-08. It was observed that the AO recorded satisfaction for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in the assessment order but levied the penalty for concealing the particulars of income in the penalty order. The Tribunal referred to the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT Vs. Samson Perinchery, which held that penalty cannot be levied if there is no proper show cause notice specifying the correct limb under Section 271(1)(c). Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the penalty order, deeming it to suffer from a jurisdictional error.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the appeals of the Revenue for the assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-01, confirming that the orders passed by the AO were barred by limitation under Section 153(2A). Similarly, the Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03 on the same grounds. For the assessment year 2007-08, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal by setting aside the penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) due to non-application of mind and improper show cause notice.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
