2019 (4) TMI 514

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... ORAL JUDGMENT PER: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Rastogi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner along with Mr. Vinay Mistri, Advocate on record and Ms. Archana Sinha for the Department. It is the initiation of the proceeding under Section 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') vide notice dated 27.11.2014 which led to the filing of the writ petition. While the matter is pending that the final order has been passed on 21.09.2016 placed on record through Annexure-1 to I.A. No.7919 of 2016. The notice/order is put to question in this writ petition relying upon the prescription underlying Section 275(1)(c) of 'the Act', which inter alia prescribes a stipulated period ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on that led to drawing of a proceeding under Section 271E of 'the Act' by service of notice thereunder dated 27.11.2014 at Annexure-2 to the writ petition. It is at this stage that the petitioner approached this court and while the matter is pending before this court that final order has been passed on 29.01.2016, which has been placed on record vide Annexure-1 series to I.A. No. 7919/2016, and since it is consequential to the notice which was impugned before this court that we have permitted the petitioner to question the same in the present proceedings. Section 271E falls under Chapter-XXI which deals with 'penalties imposable' and makes any person liable to penalty for any contravention of the provisions of Section 269T. Such proceedi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....locutory Application and upholds the default by the petitioner of the provisions underlying Section 269(T) of 'the Act'. Undisputedly, in between the issuance of the show cause notice on 27.11.2014 and the date of passing of the final orders on 29.01.2016, the limitation period prescribed under Section 275(1) (c) had expired. Ms. Archana Sinha, learned counsel for the Department has relied upon the explanation accompanying the provision of Section 275 to justify the delay, as according to her, a proceeding for rectification under Section 154 was pending and got disposed only on 26.11.2015. We fail to appreciate as to how even this order on the rectification application, passed on 26.11.2015 as admitted by Ms. Sinha would save the limi....