IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCHES : "B" NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM
AND SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JM
ITA no. 4438/DEL/2012
Assessment Year: 2002-03
DCIT, Circle 10(1) vs. M/s Dangson Hotel & Restaurants P.Ltd.
New Delhi B 28, Lawrance road
New Delhi
PAN: AAACD 9744 M
C.O. 23/Del/2013
(In ITA no. 4438/DEL/2012)
Assessment Year: 2002-03
M/s Dangson Hotel & Restaurants P.Ltd. vs. DCIT, Circle 10(1)
New Delhi New Delhi
ITA nos. 2667, 2668, 2669, 2670, 2671/DEL/2012
Assessment Years: 2001-02 to 2006-07
DCIT, Circle 10(1) vs. M/s Dangson Hotel & Restaurants P.Ltd.
New Delhi B 28, Lawrance road
New Delhi
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by:- Shri Mora Bhupal Reddy, CIT, DR
Respondent by:- Shri AK Jain, CA
Page 2 of 5
ORDER
PER BENCH
All these appeals are filed by the Revenue and are directed against
separate orders of the Ld.CIT, New Delhi for the Assessment Year 2001-02 to
2006-07.
2. The assessee also filed a C.O. no.23/Del/2013 for the Assessment Year
2002-03.
3. The short point for consideration in these appeals, is whether penalty
order passed u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act, is barred by limitation.
3.1. The dates and events which are important are as follows:-
The ITAT has disposed off the quantum appeal on 30.4.2010. The same was
received in the Office of Ld.CIT, Central II, New Delhi on 19.7.2010. The order
u/s 271(1)(c ) was passed on 28.2.2011, which is beyond the period of six
months from the date of receipt of the order of the ITAT by the CIT, Central II.
The assessee has raised the issue of limitation, before the Assessing Officer.
The Assessing Officer rejected the contention by holding that the order of the
ITAT was received by CIT-IV, on 30.9.2010 and that after decentralization, the
CIT-IV is the jurisdictional CIT. On appeal the First Appellate Authority upheld
the contention of the assessee that the order of penalty is barred by limitation.
4. Aggrieved the Revenue is in appeal before us.
Page 3 of 5
5. The Ld.D.R. submitted that initially these group cases were notified for
being assessed centrally under the jurisdiction of CIT(Central)-II, New Delhi.
Thereafter the CCIT has passed an order u/s 127 of the Act on 28.5.2010,
decentralizing the cases from the Central Circle. Due to a mistake these group
of cases, did not find place in this notification of decentralization and the CCIT
passed a Corrigendum on 17.9.2010 including these group of cases. He
argued that the Corrigendum relates back to 28.5.2010 i.e. the date of order
passed u/s 127. It was submitted that consequent to decentralization the
Jurisdictional Commissioner, is not CIT, Central II, but is CIT-IV and that the
CIT-IV received the copy of the order of the ITAT only on 30.9.2010 and
consequently an order u/s 271(1)(c) passed on 28.2.2011 is within time.
6. This contention of the Ld.D.R. cannot be accepted. Prior to passing of
the Corrigendum by the CCIT to his order u/s 127 No.CIT(C )-II/C&T/2011-
234 dt. 17.9.2010, the order of the Tribunal was received by the CIT, Central
II, New Delhi on 19.7.2005. In our considered view the limitation as prescribed
in S.275(1)(a), is to be counted from this date. Thus, we uphold the order of
the First Appellate Authority that the penalty is levied in all these cases are
barred by limitation.
7. The assessee has filed a paper book running into pages 1 to 19 to
demonstrate that the order of the ITAT was received by the CIT, Central Circle
I, New Delhi before the jurisdiction of the case was transferred to CIT-IV. He
also wanted to draw the attention of this Bench to certain replies obtained in
response to applications made under the Right to Information Act. As we have
Page 4 of 5
upheld the order of the First Appellate Authority, we need not go into these
papers.
8. In the result all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed.
9. For the Assessment Year 2002-03 there is a discussion on merits of the
case. The Cross Objection by the assessee for the Assessment Year 2002-03 is
also on the issue on merits. In view of our above find that all the appeals by
the Revenue are barred by limitation, we would not go into the merits of the
case as well as the C.O. filed by the assesse, as it would be an academic
exercise. In the result, the C.O. filed by the assessee is dismissed.
10. In the result the appeals filed by the revenue for all the AYs are
dismissed and the C.O. filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2002-03 also
stands dismissed as `infructuous'.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 13th March, 2014.
Sd/- Sd/-
(RAJPAL YADAV) (J.SUDHAKAR REDDY)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: the 13th March, 2014
*manga
Page 5 of 5
Copy of the Order forwarded to:
1. Appellant; 2.Respondent; 3.CIT; 4.CIT(A); 5.DR; 6.Guard File
By Order
Asst. Registrar
|