2017 (11) TMI 1919 - AT - Income Tax

Appellate Tribunal remands IT penalty orders for fresh determination on time-bar issue.

Shri Gopal S. Pandith, Smt. Rajeshwari Pandith Versus The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range, Panaji, Goa

The Appellate Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to determine whether penalty orders under sections 271D and ... Penalty u/s. 271D and u/s. 271E - Whether order of penalty is barred by limitation? - HELD THAT:- There is no finding of CIT (A) regarding this time barring aspect. Remaining three appeals in the case of Shri Gopal S. Pandith out of which one appeal is regarding penalty imposed by the AO u/s. 271D for Assessment Year 2005-06 and the remaining two appeals are in respect of penalty imposed by the AO u/s. 271E for Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2007-08 and one appeal in the case of Smt. Rajeshwari Pandith for Assessment Year 2007-08 in respect of penalty imposed by the AO u/s. 271D was decided by CIT(A) as per his order dated 11.03.2015 and in this order also, there is no decision regarding time barring aspect. All these eleven appeals, the time barring aspect was raised by the assessee as per ground no. 1 of the appeals in all these appeals which is not decided by CIT(A). Under these facts, we feel it proper to restore the entire matter back to the file of CIT (A) for fresh decision. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. Issues:Appeal against penalty imposed under sections 271D and 271E of the IT Act for various assessment years - Whether penalty orders are barred by limitation.Analysis:The Appellate Tribunal heard multiple appeals filed by the assessee against penalties imposed by the Assessing Officer under sections 271D and 271E of the IT Act for different assessment years. The primary issue raised in all eleven appeals was whether the penalty orders were barred by limitation. The assessee contended that this aspect was not decided by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)), and requested the matter to be sent back to CIT(A) for a fresh decision after considering this technical aspect. The Revenue, on the other hand, supported the orders of the authorities below.Upon considering the submissions, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not addressed the time-barring aspect in the orders passed for various assessment years. The Tribunal observed that the grounds of appeal in all eleven cases raised the issue of limitation, which was left undecided by the CIT(A). Consequently, the Tribunal decided to remand the entire matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The CIT(A) was directed to determine whether the penalty orders were time-barred or not. If the penalty orders were found to be within the limitation period, the CIT(A) was instructed to decide the issue on merit afresh. However, if the penalty orders were deemed time-barred, no further decision was necessary. The Tribunal emphasized that both parties should be given a fair opportunity to present their arguments, and the CIT(A) should provide a detailed and reasoned order.As a result, the Tribunal allowed all eleven appeals filed by the assessee for statistical purposes. The order was pronounced in an open court on the specified date.