1996 (3) TMI 71

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....unal was justified in cancelling the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? " 2. Whether the bar of limitation contained under section 275 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, would attenuate or curtail the powers of the Commissioner of Income-tax, vested in him under section 263 of the said Act ? " The assessee is a firm with five partners. The assessment for the assessment year 1976-77 was completed by the Income-tax Officer on November 2, 1977, under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In the course of assessment proceedings, penal action under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated for the detailed reasons stated in the assessment order. The Income-tax Officer subsequentl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....irect means that which cannot be achieved by direct means. According to the Tribunal any proceedings by way of imposition of penalty should have been completed by March 31, 1980, and if no penalty is imposed by that time, the assessee would naturally get a vested right, which cannot be titled. The Tribunal further pointed out that if the impugned order of the Commissioner of Income-tax were to be upheld by the Tribunal, then the Income-tax Officer gets an extended time to impose penalty and that is against the scheme and provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, the Tribunal cancelled the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax passed under section 263 of the Act. Before us, learned standing counsel appearing for the Departmen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cer during the course of the assessment proceedings, initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Subsequently, the Income-tax Officer dropped the penalty proceedings on March 22, 1980. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Administration), on a scrutiny of the order passed by the Income-tax Officer, came to the conclusion that the order passed by the Income-tax Officer in dropping the penalty was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Therefore, the Commissioner of Income-tax initiated proceedings under section 263 of the Act, set aside the order passed by the Income-tax Officer in dropping the penalty proceedings initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, and directed him to reconsider the case in the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... National Taj Traders [1980] 121 ITR 535, wherein while considering sections 33(4), 33B(2)(b), (4) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and section 263(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, it held : " The words 'no order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the date of the order sought to be revised', in section 33B(2)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, are applicable only to suo motu orders of the Commissioner in revision and not to orders made by him pursuant to a direction or order passed by the Appellate Tribunal under sub-section (4) or by a higher authority. Section 33B is not a charging section. The enactment of section 263(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, must be regarded as declaratory of the law ....