2025 (4) TMI 333 - HC - Income Tax

Writ petition challenging penalty order under Section 271D dismissed as limitation period extended till March 2022

Tvl. Chandro Process, Represented by its Partner Sri E.A. Arumugam Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – II, Tirupur, The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi.

Tvl. Chandro Process, Represented by its Partner Sri E.A. Arumugam Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – II, Tirupur, The Joint ... 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal issues considered in this judgment include: Whether the penalty order dated 19.08.2021, imposing a penalty under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was passed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 275 of the IT Act. Whether the impugned penalty order was premature, given the pending appeal against the assessment order dated 30.12.2019. Whether the extended limitation period under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Ordinance, 2020 and the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA, 2020) applied to the penalty proceedings.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISLimitation Period for Penalty Order: Relevant legal framework and precedents: The limitation for imposing penalties under the IT Act is governed by Section 275. The petitioner argued that the limitation expired on 31.03.2020, or alternatively, on 31.08.2020, based on Section 275(1)(c). The respondent countered that the limitation period was extended due to TOLA, 2020. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court analyzed the applicability of Section 275(1)(a) versus Section 275(1)(c), concluding that Section 275(1)(a) applied because the assessment order was under appeal. The Court noted that the limitation period was extended by TOLA, 2020, and subsequent notifications. Application of law to facts: The Court found that the impugned penalty order was issued within the extended limitation period, as the original deadline was extended to 31.03.2022. Treatment of competing arguments: The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that the limitation period under Section 275(1)(c) applied, emphasizing the specific provisions of Section 275(1)(a) for cases under appeal. Conclusions: The penalty order was not time-barred due to the extended limitation period under TOLA, 2020.Prematurity of the Penalty Order: Relevant legal framework and precedents: The petitioner argued that the penalty order was premature because the appeal against the assessment order was pending. The Court referred to Section 275(1A) of the IT Act, which allows revision of a penalty order post-appeal. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that the penalty order could be revised after the appeal is disposed of, and thus the order was not premature. Application of law to facts: Since the penalty order was issued within the extended limitation period, it was not required to await the appellate decision. Treatment of competing arguments: The Court dismissed the argument of prematurity, stating that the order could be revised post-appeal. Conclusions: The penalty order was not premature and could be revised if necessary after the appellate decision.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS Core principles established: The Court clarified that the limitation period for penalty proceedings, when an appeal is pending, is governed by Section 275(1)(a) of the IT Act. The period can be extended by legislative measures such as TOLA, 2020. Final determinations on each issue: The Court determined that the penalty order was issued within the valid limitation period and was not premature. The writ petition was dismissed, allowing the petitioner to challenge the penalty order on merits before the Appellate Commissioner.In conclusion, the Court upheld the penalty order, emphasizing the applicability of Section 275(1)(a) and the extended limitation period under TOLA, 2020, while granting the petitioner the liberty to appeal the penalty order on merits.