AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1985 (4) TMI 24
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere not applicable to penalty proceedings which were pending on April 1, 1971 ? " The facts may be briefly stated. The Income-tax Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(a) of the Act for the assessment years 1966-67, 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 as the assessee failed to file returns in accordance with the provisions of section 139 of the Act. The due date for these assessment years for filing the return was 30th September for each of the assessment years in question. The assessments were made by the Income-tax Officer on July 13, 1970. The Income-tax Officer issued show-cause notices to the assessee in each of the aforesaid four years and the assessee filed a written explanation. The Income-tax Officer did not accept....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... point of limitation with regard to the date of imposition of penalty. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner has pointed out that the penalties in these cases were imposed on March 23, 1973, and the relevant assessments were completed on July 13, 1970. He held that in terms of section 275 of the Act, the penalty proceedings should have been completed within two years from July 13, 1970, i.e., by July 12, 1972. He, therefore, took the view that penalties were imposed after about eight months from the expiry of the date of limitation. He has also pointed out that the appellant, Smt. Savita M. Thakar, is legal representative of Shri Late Manikant Thakkar. He has also pointed out that amendment regarding the limitation period by Act No. 42 of 19....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s should have been completed within two years from July 13, 1970, i.e., by July 12, 1972. He held that the penalties have been imposed after about eight months from the expiry of the date of limitation. As the penalties were imposed on March 23, 1973, he held that the penalty orders under section 273(b) were barred by limitation. He cancelled the penalty orders of the Income-tax Officer and allowed all the appeals. On the basis of the consolidated order, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner also passed separate orders for the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71, allowing the appeals for the reasons discussed in his consolidated order relating to penalty under section 273(b) of the Act. This consolidated order of the Ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nalties under sections 271(1)(a) and 273(b) of the Act in all the cases on March 23, 1973. It cannot be doubted that under section 275 of the Act, before it was amended by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, with effect from April 1, 1971, no order imposing a penalty under this Chapter could be passed after the expiration of two years from the date of the completion of the proceedings in the course of which the proceedings for the imposition of penalty have been commenced. By the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, the penalty could be imposed within two years from the end of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for imposing of penalty has been initiated, are completed. In the present case, the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... enlarged, the limitation being a procedural one, the extended period of limitation will apply to such proceedings. In the case before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, under the old section 275 as it stood before the Amendment Act, 1970, the limitation for levying penalty was due to expire by February 25,1972. As section 275 of the Act was amended with effect from April 1, 1971, enlarging the period of limitation, the High Court held that the amended section governs the case under which the impugned orders levying penalty would be in time as they were made before March 31, 1972. Similar view has been taken in the case of CIT v. Bhikari Charan Panda [1976] 104 ITR 73 (Orissa), in the case of CIT v. Soubhagya Manjari Devi [1976] 105 ITR 82 (Ori....