1999 (12) TMI 92

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mmissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in levying penalty of Rs. 6,73,695 under section 271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act. (2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in upholding the validity of penalty order by rejecting the plea of the assessee that the penalty order has been passed after limitation period prescribed under section 275 of the Income-tax Act. (3) It is therefore prayed that the penalty of Rs. 6,73,695 may please be deleted and the penalty order may please be annulled being barred by limitation. 2. The learned AR of the assessee submitted that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was barred by limitation a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e of the assessee. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the above finding of the Assessing Officer vide order dated 15-2-1995. On further appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal upheld the action of the Commissioner (Appeals) in this regard vide order dated 30-5-1996. On an application for reference under section 256(1) by the assessee the Tribunal allowed the Reference Application by its order dated 18-2-1997 in R.A. No. 455/Ahd/96 (Arising out of ITA No. 1982/Ahd/95). 4. It was submitted by the ld. AR of the assessee that the order of the Tribunal in the quantum appeal dated 30-5-1996 was received by the Commissioner on 16-8-1996 and accordingly as per the provisions of section 275 the order of penalty has to be passed by the A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erefore for the purpose of limitation under section 275 an order of the Tribunal is the order under section 254 and not the order under section 260. It was submitted that the decisions relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) were in a totally different context. It was accordingly submitted that the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer as upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) is clearly barred by limitation and the order should be quashed. 5. The learned DR strongly relied on the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and submitted that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is within the period of limitation. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and have also gone through the orders passed by the Assessing Officer as well a....