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 158BFA(3)(c) of the Income Tax Act, the court held that the limitation for passing the penalty order would begin from the date the ITAT order was received by the CIT (Judicial). The court applied a previous decision to the case, stating that it declared the law as it always stood and would apply to pending cases. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, finding no legal infirmity in the ITAT's order and no substantial question of law arose.

---

---

Issues:
1. Delay in filing appeal
2. Initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 158BFA(3)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
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 Act
4. Applicability of a previous court decision to penalty proceedings under Section 158BFA(3)(c)

Issue 1: Delay in filing appeal
The 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, 1961
The 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 Act
The 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.

---