2016 (3) TMI 1084

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., for the sake of convenience they are heard together and disposed of by way of this common order. 1.1. The assessee raised the issue of limitation by invoking "Rule 27" of ITAT Rules. As the Ld.CIT(A) had considered this ground of the assessee and decided the issue against the assessee, we hold that the assessee is entitled to raise this ground on the issue of limitation under Rule 27 of ITAT Rules.   2. We have heard Shri Kartar Singh, the Ld.CIT,D.R. on behalf of the Revenue and Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee. . 2.1. After hearing rival contentions and on a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of material on record, orders of lower authorities, case laws cited, we hol....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....was taken on 22.08.2012. As the order was passed on 30.11.2012, it was within the period of limitation prescribed u/s 275(1)( c). 4.5 In view of the above, this ground of appeal raised by the appellant is contrary to the law in the matter and is, accordingly, dismissed."   3.1. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Principal CIT-5 vs. Jkd Capital & Finelase Ltd. judgement dated 13th October,2015 at paras 8 and 9 it was held as follows. "8. We are unable to agree with the above submission of learned Standing counsel for the Revenue. Section 275 (1) (c) reads as under: 275. (1) No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be passed (a).... (b)..... (c) in any other case, after the expiry of the financial year in whic....