2022 (10) TMI 608 - AT - Income Tax

Tax Tribunal Rules Penalty Orders Invalid Due to Time Limit Overstep Under Income Tax Act Sections 271D and 271E.

Triumph Securities Ltd. Versus Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cen Cir-6, Mumbai

Triumph Securities Ltd. Versus Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cen Cir-6, Mumbai - TMI Issues Involved:1. Confirmation and enhancement of penalty under Section 271E of the Income Tax Act.2. Confirmation and enhancement of penalty under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act.3. The legality of the penalty orders based on the limitation period under Section 275(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Confirmation and Enhancement of Penalty under Section 271EThe appellant challenged the penalty of Rs. 12,23,75,000 levied by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax and the enhancement of Rs. 22,99,17,749 by the CIT(A). The grounds of appeal included the argument that the CIT(A) did not follow the Tribunal's directions from an order dated 12th July 2006. The appellant also contended that the observations in the CIT(A)'s order were factually incorrect, as discussions with the authorized representative and a letter dated 18th December 2017 were not properly considered.Issue 2: Confirmation and Enhancement of Penalty under Section 271DThe appellant contested the ex parte order dated 29th November 2017 by the CIT(A), which confirmed the penalty of Rs. 12,38,75,000 and enhanced it by Rs. 43,44,25,859. The appellant argued that the authorized representative attended the CIT(A)'s office on three occasions, but the CIT(A) was not available due to holding dual charges. The appellant claimed that the penalties were not leviable and should not have been confirmed or enhanced.Issue 3: Legality of Penalty Orders Based on Limitation PeriodThe appellant argued that the penalty orders dated 30th July 2004 were bad in law as they were passed beyond the prescribed time limit under Section 275(1)(c) of the Act. The appellant contended that the penalty should have been levied by 30th June 2004, making the orders time-barred. The appellant cited decisions from the Delhi High Court, including PCIT vs. Mahesh Wood Products (P.) Ltd. and Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. JKD Capital and Finlease Limited, to support this claim.The Tribunal admitted the additional ground of appeal, recognizing it as a jurisdictional issue that goes to the root of the matter and does not require further verification of facts. The Tribunal found that the first notice under Section 271E was issued on 15th December 2003, and the penalty was imposed on 30th July 2004. According to Section 275(1)(c), the penalty should have been levied by 30th June 2004. The Tribunal held that the subsequent notice issued on 16th January 2004 could not extend the time limit for levying the penalty, as it would allow the adjudicating authority to indefinitely extend the time limit, which is against the law's intent.Conclusion:The Tribunal quashed both penalty orders under Sections 271D and 271E of the Act, ruling them barred by the limitation period. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, and the issue of reasonable cause and the merits of the penalty were not adjudicated.Order:Both appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, and the order was pronounced in the open court on 14.10.2022.