TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (10) TMI 1261
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... recording satisfaction as provided u/s 271." 2 Facts, in brief, as per relevant orders are that assessment was in this case was completed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the "Act"] on an income of Rs.1,16,46,380/- vide order dated 26-03-1997 in pursuance to return declaring income of Rs.3,26,370/- filed on 26-10-1994 by the assessee, manufacturing steel plants, sheets and structures. Inter alia, following disallowances/additions were made:- (In Rs.) [a] On a/c of low gross profit 25,54,884/- [b] refund of share application money 9,73,010/- [c] interest on unexplained deposits of earlier years 1,04,640/- [d] transactions in the name of M/s Gayatri Steel Traders 73,56,189/- [e] purchase from M/s Rahul Enterprise 43,557/- [f] Sale of M/s Satyam Steel Corporation 1,11,270/- [g] Other misc. disallowances, including for Vehicles, Telephone & office expenses 15,353/- Simultaneously penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated for concealment of particulars of income. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) vide his order dated 19-12-1997 upheld the addi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oncealment, penalty could not be imposed. Inter alia, the assessee relied upon the a number of decisions in CIT vs. Ramaswamy Naidu (1994) 208 ITR 377 (Mad),CIT vs. University Printers (1991) 188 ITR 206 (Cal), Additional CIT vs. Sawan Motor Stores (1977) 109 ITR 660 (AP),CIT vs. Shri Bajrang Trading and Supply Company (1991) 187 ITR 299 (Cal) and P.S.S. Bommanna Chettiar vs. CIT (1969) 73 ITR 26 (Mad).The assessee also contended that filing of a miscellaneous application before the ITAT did not extend limitation period stipulated u/s 275 of the Act. For this proposition, the assessee relied on decisions in Smt. Shardaben vs. CIT (2000) 75 ITD 274 (Ahd), ACIT vs. Delhi Industrial Syndicate (2002) 83 ITR 130 (Delhi) and B N Amarnath vs. CIT (2003) 126 Taxman 201 (Kar).However, the AO rejected the contentions of the assessee on the ground that the order passed by the Tribunal on their miscellaneous application formed part of the order of the Tribunal order u/s 253 of the Act and, therefore, penalty proceedings were not time barred. While referring to the findings of the ITAT on their order in quantum appeal, the AO imposed a penalty of Rs.27,17,780/-@100% of the tax sought to be evad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not find any mistake in the earlier order. Thus the miscellaneous applications were filed in regard to the material fact of the alleged bogus transaction with Gayatri Steel Traders and the Hon'ble ITAT after considering the facts rejected the applications of the assessee arid the Department. The miscellaneous applications were in regard to the transactions which form part of the order passed under section 253 by the Hon'ble ITAT. These were filed by assessee as well as the Department. It is seen that the miscellaneous application was filed by the Department within six weeks of the receipt of the order of the Hon'ble ITAT. During the course of appellate proceedings the concerned Addl. CIT also, mentioned that the Assessing Officer had serious difficulty in giving effect to the order of the Hon'ble ITAT. Thus both the parties were aggrieved with Hon'ble ITAT's original order and did not deem it final in relation to major component of addition. Further had the Hon'ble ITAT decided to amend its earlier order passed, the quantum of addition upheld by it would have undergone change. Thereby the quantum of penalty leviable u/s. 271(l)(c) would have also changed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(1)(a) of the Act, stipulating limitation for imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act,which read as under:- "Sec. 275 [(1)] No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be passed- [(a) in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject-matter of an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 246 [or section 246A] or an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under section 253, after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed, or six months from the end of the month in which the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Appellate Tribunal is received by the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, whichever period expires later; ................................................................................................. [Explanation : In computing the period of limitation for the purposes of this section,- (i) the time taken in giving an opportunity to the assessee to be reheard under the proviso to section 129; (ii) any period during which the immunity granted u....