2016 (3) TMI 1362

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....A) has erred in law in deleting the penalty of Rs. 33,60,000/- levied by the A.O U/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,1961. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the penalty proceedings were initiated at the time of completion of assessment and the assessment was sustained by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh and section 275(1A) was rightly applied by the A.O. (ii) That, it is prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set-aside and that of the Assessing Officer restored." 3. The brief facts of the case as noted in the assessment order are that an addition of Rs. 58,20,600/- was made to the income of assessee  vide order dated 27.03.1997 and in appeal before learned CIT(A), the learned CIT(A) set asi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vived in view of the provisions of section 275(1A) and in this respect our attention was invited to the provisions of section 275(1A). 6. The learned AR, on the other hand, submitted that the provisions of section 275(IA) were inserted in the Act vide amendment Act 2006 w.e.f 13.07.2006 whereas the assessee's case relates to assessment year 1994-95. He submitted that the law existing at the time of committing an offence can be applied and law which was not in force at the time of committing an offence cannot be applied. He submitted that it is an undisputed fact that before 13.07.2006, section 275(1A) was not on statute and the provisions of section 275(1)(a) were only applicable and in this respect our attention was invited to the provi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2192 vide order dated 22.07.2011, for Ass. Year 1998-99 in the case of Cosmo Films Ltd. vs. ACIT (supra) under similar facts and circumstances vide pars 10 to 17 has decided similar issue in fvour of assessee by holding as under: "10. Thus as per section 275(1)(a) proviso, in order to be within limitation, a penalty order needs must be passed, in the facts of the present case, within one year from the end of the financial year in which the order of the commissioner (A) is received by the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, whichever, is later, in a case where the assessment order is subject matter of appeal before the Commissioner(A) and the Commissioner passes the order on or after 1.6.2003 disposing of such appeal. 11. I....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal or the High Court or the Supreme Court is received by the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner or the order of revision under section 263 or section 264 is passed, an order imposing or enhancing or reducing or cancelling penalty or dropping the proceedings for the imposition of penalty may be passed on the basis of assessment as revised by giving effect to such order of the Commissioner (Appeals) or, the Appellate Tribunal or the High Court, or the Supreme Court or order of revision under section 263 or section 764: " 13. As per section 275(1 A) of the Act, therefore, the limitation provided there under concerns cases where the assessment order or revision is under....