2017 (10) TMI 321 - HC - Income Tax

Court condones delay in appeal filing, sets penalty limitation, upholds previous decision. Appeal dismissed.

The court condoned the delay in filing the appeal and disposed of the application. Regarding the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section ... Initiation of the penalty proceedings u/s 158BFA - whether the initiation of the penalty was time barred inasmuch as it was beyond six month’s time from the end of the month in which the order of the ITAT was received by the Commissioner of Income Tax (‘CIT’) (Judicial) and not the “concerned CIT”? - Held that:- The Court finds that the expression “received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner” appearing in Section 158BFA(3)(c) is identical to the expression in Section 260A(1) of the Act which was interpreted by this Court in Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd. (2017 (3) TMI 1266 - DELHI HIGH COURT) as any CIT and not necessarily the 'concerned' CIT. In other words, for the purpose of Section 158BFA(3)(c) of the Act, if the order of the ITAT was received by the CIT (Judicial), the limitation of 6 months within which the penalty order had to be passed would begin to run from that date regardless of the fact that the order of the ITAT was received by the concerned CIT only thereafter. As far as the second submission is concerned, this Court in Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd. (supra) declared the law as it always stood. The question of the said decision applying only prospectively does not arise. While it will not result in matters that have attained finality being reopened, it will apply to cases that are pending at various levels in the hierarchy of authorities. - Decided against revenue Issues:1. Delay in filing appeal2. Initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 158BFA(3)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 19613. Interpretation of the expression 'received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner' in Section 158BFA(3)(c) of the Act4. Applicability of a previous court decision to penalty proceedings under Section 158BFA(3)(c)Issue 1: Delay in filing appealThe delay in filing the appeal was condoned by the court for reasons explained in the application, and the application was disposed of.Issue 2: Initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 158BFA(3)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961The appeals were by the Revenue against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the block period. The main question was whether the penalty proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer were time-barred as they were beyond six months from the end of the month in which the ITAT order was received by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Judicial) and not the 'concerned CIT.'Issue 3: Interpretation of the expression 'received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner' in Section 158BFA(3)(c) of the ActThe court found that the expression in Section 158BFA(3)(c) was interpreted similarly to Section 260A(1) of the Act in a previous case. It was held that for the purpose of Section 158BFA(3)(c), if the ITAT order was received by the CIT (Judicial), the limitation of six months for passing the penalty order would begin from that date, irrespective of when the order was received by the concerned CIT.Issue 4: Applicability of a previous court decision to penalty proceedings under Section 158BFA(3)(c)The Revenue argued that a previous court decision should not apply to the present case as it was not pronounced at the time the penalty proceedings were initiated. However, the court held that the decision declared the law as it always stood and would apply to pending cases at various levels. The court dismissed the appeal, finding no legal infirmity in the ITAT's order, and no substantial question of law arose.