TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (4) TMI 227
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in 'Presuming' that the order of the ITAT dated 10-1-1991 was received in the office of the CIT, when the CIT(A) himself verified from the records of the Assessing Officer that no such order was over received. 4. The availability of zerox copy of the order of the ITAT dated 10-1-1991 in the records and not in the carbon copy of justify Assessing Officer's assertion that the order of the ITAT dated 10-1-1991 was never received. 5. The ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the order of the ITAT dated 10-1-1991 was received in time without specifying the date on which this order was received to count the period of limitation, although the ld. CIT(A) thoroughly examined the records. 6. Without prejudice to the above, the ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the expression order of ............... the Appellate Tribunal used in section 275(1)(a) refers to the order under section 254(1) and not order under section 254(2) and ignoring that rectification proceedings under section 254(1); and that the limitation would run from the date of order under section 254(2) passed by the Appellate Tribunal. 7. The ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Misc. petition filed by the assessee reference t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appeared before the Assessing Officer on 18-3-1991 at 11.00 A.M. and the case was adjourned for 21-3-1991. The assessee was also requested to file a copy of the order of the Tribunal dated10-1-1991on21-3-1991. After that the proceedings were adjourned sine die and were restarted in the month of March 1992. The matter was adjourned for27-3-1992against was adjourned for11-6-1992and then on16-6-1992. After that the assessee filed detailed reply on 27-3-1992 wherein the reply was given in regard to penalty on merit and it was further submitted that penalty proceedings have become time barred, because as per provisions of section 275, the penalty can be imposed within six months from the date of receipt of order of the Tribunal. It was further submitted that Tribunal had passed order on10-1-1991and six months thereafter have already lapsed. Therefore, it was pleaded that these penalty proceedings are barred by limitation. The Assessing Officer was not satisfied. He held that penalty is leviable on the facts of the present case, as assessee could not substantiate its claim in regard to cash introduction of Rs. 7.5 lakhs. Further on the point of limitation, the Assessing Officer held tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....c. Application No. 181 (Delhi)/91 filed by assessee. Therefore, it cannot be said that earlier order has been merged with the order of Tribunal dated20-12-1991. In view of these observations, the CIT (Appeals) held that the penalty order passed by Assessing Officer was barred by limitation. Accordingly the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer was deleted. Now the department is in appeal against this order of the CIT (Appeals) here before the Tribunal. 6. The learned Sr. Counsel, Ms. Ruchika C. Govil, who appeared on behalf of the department, strongly supported the order of the Assessing Officer. It was further added that first order of the Tribunal dated10-1-1991has been merged in the second order of the Tribunal passed on20-12-1991. It was further submitted that there was apparent mistake in the order of the Tribunal dated10-1-1991, because there were three issues and on two issues no finding was given by the Tribunal. After finding out that there was a mistake in the earlier order, then in second order the Tribunal restored the matter in regard to two remaining issues. Therefore, the limitation of six months starts from the date of receipt of second order and not from the dat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... March 1991, the copy of the order of Tribunal was before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, it cannot be said that the order of the Tribunal dated10-1-1991was not with the Assessing Officer. There is one more reason that the order of the Tribunal dated10-1-1991was in the knowledge of the Assessing Officer, because the Assessing Officer issued notices under section 271(1)(c) etc. in the month of March 1991. If for a moment, it is taken into consideration that there was no information with the Assessing Officer that no order has been passed by the Tribunal, then what was the circumstances for issuing notices under section 271(1)(c) etc. in the month of March 1991. Neither the learned D.R. could explain nor any other material was brought on record that why the notice was issued in the month of March 1991. Therefore, the contention of the department that no order of the Tribunal dated10-1-1991was received is not tenable. Accordingly the grounds of the department relating to this issue are dismissed. 9. Regarding the period of limitation point, we again find that the limitation of six months provided under section 275 cannot be extended. This period of limitation of six months is provi....