TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 898
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....961 was conducted at the residential premises of the directors of the company on 24.10.2013. The assessment in this case was completed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 31.03.2016 at return income accepted. Further, a penalty u/s 271AAB amounting to Rs. 20,00,000/- was imposed on the assessee on the undisclosed income amounting to Rs. 2,00,00,000/- admitted by the assessee u/s 132(4) of the Income Tax Act by order dated 29.09.2016. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A)-5, Ludhiana. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A)-5, Ludhiana vide order dated 22.02.2018 in appeal No.407/1617/CIT(A)-5/Ldh had confirmed the levy of the penalty u/s 271AAB. Aggrieved with this order,the assessee filed appeal before the Hon'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oval from the concerned Additional CIT,JCIT. Therefore, the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer for levying the penalty under section 271AAB of the Act was void abinitio. In that view of the matter the impugned penalty levied u/s 271AAI3 of the Act by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is deleted." 5. That the perusal of the records show that the Assessing Officer had forwarded the draft penalty order u/s 271AAB of the I.T. Act, 1961 for approval of JCIT, Central Range, Ludhiana as per the provisions of section 274 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The draft order was dated as 29.09.2016 and the approval was accorded by the JCIT Central Range, Ludhiana to the Assessing Officer vide letter No. 1036 dated 30.09.2016. Inad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mentioned in the penalty order served upon assessee before expiry of limitation. As such not changing of date of order (from the date of draft order submitted by Assessing Officer to the JCIT for approval u/s 274(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961) is an inadvertent clerical mistake which is otherwise covered u/s 29215 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. That in view of these facts there was no occasion for the Hon'ble ITAT to delete the penalty order as the penalty order was passed after the requisite prior approval of the JCIT/Additional CIT as per the provisions of the section 274(2) of the Income Tax Act. Also the above mentioned error in the penalty order is only typographical, which could be cured as per the provisions of Section....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....During the course of hearing the Ld. Sr. DR reiterated the contents of the aforesaid Miscellaneous Applications and stated that the error in the penalty order passed by the A.O. was only typographical and that the date in draft order i.e; the date 29/09/2016 remained unchanged while the approval was accorded by the JCIT vide his letter dt. 1036 dt. 30/09/2016 and inadvertently the date in final penalty order under section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') was wrongly mentioned as 29/09/2016 instead of 30/09/2016. 4. In his rival submissions the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the order dt. 22/04/2019 has been passed by the ITAT after considering all the facts on record and that during ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....from the date of the order to rectify any mistake apparent from the record and amend any order passed by it under sub-section(1) and to make such amendment if a mistake is brought to its notice by the assessee or the Assessing Officer. However, the Tribunal cannot review its order." 5.2 A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. reported in (2007) 293 ITR 132 wherein it has been held as under: "A plain reading of the provision indicates that in order to exercise the power vested in it under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has to ensure that the following factors are present: (a) The application is made within 4 years from the date of t....