| Case ID |
0a933003-a7c7-49b9-b670-0c17ca75d7bf |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
IT APPEAL NO. 243 OF 2008 |
| Decision Date |
Nov 26, 2008 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The court ruled that the penalty order passed on 17-2-2004 was time-barred as it was beyond the prescribed period of limitation under section 275(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court clarified that since the penalty proceedings were initiated through a show-cause notice issued on 31-7-2003, the penalty order could only be valid if passed on or before 31-1-2004. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory time limits for penalty imposition and rejected the interpretation of the Tribunal that allowed the penalty order to be passed before the end of the financial year, reinforcing the need for timely compliance with legal provisions. |
| Summary |
This case involves the interpretation of section 275(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding the limitation period for imposing penalties. The Delhi High Court ruled on the appeal of Subodh Kumar Bhargava, who contested a penalty imposed for failing to get accounts audited. The court held that the penalty order was time-barred as it was issued after the six-month period post the initiation of penalty proceedings. This ruling underscores the importance of compliance with statutory deadlines in tax matters, ensuring that penalties are imposed within the legal timeframe to uphold the principles of justice and accountability in taxation. The decision emphasizes the legislative intent behind the limitation provisions and the necessity for tax authorities to act within prescribed limits, which is crucial for maintaining taxpayer rights and upholding the integrity of tax administration. |
| Court |
Delhi High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
Badar Durrez Ahmed,
Rajiv Shakdher
|
| Lawyers |
Dr. Rakesh Gupta,
Ms. Poonam Ahuja,
Ms. Aarti Saini,
Ms. Prem Lata Bansal
|
| Petitioners |
Subodh Kumar Bhargava
|
| Respondents |
Commissioner of Income-tax
|
| Citations |
2009 SLD 2107,
(2009) 309 ITR 31,
(2008) 175 TAXMAN 520
|
| Other Citations |
Shanbhag Restaurant v. Dy. CIT [2004] 266 ITR 393,
CIT v. Hissaria Bros. [2007] 291 ITR 244,
CIT v. Chhajer Packaging & Plastics (P.) Ltd. [2008] 300 ITR 180
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
275(1)(c),
271B
|