| Case ID |
41d406f4-de74-483d-a4d8-3fbe7d0164f5 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
IT APPEAL No. 47 OF 1999 |
| Decision Date |
Dec 10, 2007 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The court held that the imposition of penalty under section 271B was not barred by limitation. It determined that the penalty proceedings could be initiated independently of any other proceedings and that the delay in getting accounts audited was condoned under the law, given the circumstances where the assessee had applied for an extension of time for filing the return. The court concluded that the Assessing Officer’s actions were valid, and the penalty imposed was appropriate. The Tribunal's order was set aside, and the imposition of penalty was quashed. |
| Summary |
The case revolves around the interpretation of sections 271B and 275 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, focusing on the imposition of penalties for failure to get accounts audited. The Punjab and Haryana High Court analyzed the timelines and procedural aspects related to the application for extension of time for filing returns. It was determined that the delay in audits was impliedly accepted due to the lack of response from the Assessing Officer to the extension request. The ruling emphasizes the importance of timely communication in tax procedures and clarifies that penalties can be initiated independently of the assessment proceedings, thereby ensuring compliance with the Income-tax Act. This case is significant for taxpayers and legal practitioners, illustrating the nuances of tax law compliance and the implications of procedural delays in penalty assessments. |
| Court |
Punjab and Haryana High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
|
| Judges |
M.M. Kumar,
Ajay Kumar Mittal
|
| Lawyers |
Sanjay Bansal,
Parvesh Saini,
Prashant Bansal,
Sanjiv Bansal
|
| Petitioners |
Madan Roller Flour Mills
|
| Respondents |
Commissioner of Income Tax
|
| Citations |
2008 SLD 3959,
(2008) 301 ITR 1
|
| Other Citations |
D.M. Manasvi v. CIT [1972] 86 ITR 557 (SC),
CIT v. Rajinder Kumar Somani [1980] 125 ITR 756/ 4 Taxman 549(Delhi),
CIT v. Surinder Kumar Parmod Kumar [1992] 193 ITR 71/ 60 Taxman 284 (Punj. & Har.),
CIT v. Ajanta Electricals [1995] 215 ITR 114/ 81 Taxman 166 (SC),
Harmanjit Trust v. CIT [1984] 148 ITR 214/ 17 Taxman 372(Punj. & Har.)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
271B,
275
|