https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273198 A penalty order under section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was not invalid merely because it was passed after considerable delay, since the statute prescribed no express limitation period. The Court held that delay alone does not imply a time bar, and the Tribunal had erred in treating lateness itself as sufficient to void the order. The earlier decision relied on by the assessee was distinguished because it did not lay down that delay by itself makes a penalty order void. The legal question was answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. en-us Tue, 31 Mar 1964 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Jun 2018 15:28:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273198 A penalty order under section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was not invalid merely because it was passed after considerable delay, since the statute prescribed no express limitation period. The Court held that delay alone does not imply a time bar, and the Tribunal had erred in treating lateness itself as sufficient to void the order. The earlier decision relied on by the assessee was distinguished because it did not lay down that delay by itself makes a penalty order void. The legal question was answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 31 Mar 1964 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273198