The case titled ‘Sri Chaudhary vs Pr. CIT’ concerns an appeal against the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), Ghaziabad’s order directing the Assessing Officer (AO) to levy a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2015-16. The appeal was filed to contest the PCIT’s directive, arguing that the order was erroneous and not implemented within the stipulated time frame. The final tribunal order was pronounced on 31 July 2023.
Case Number: ITA 517/DEL/2021
Appellant: Sri Chaudhary, Ghaziabad
Respondent: Pr. CIT, Ghaziabad
Assessment Year: 2015-16
Case Filed On: 2021-05-17
Order Type: Final Tribunal Order
Date of Order: 2023-07-31
Pronounced On: 2023-07-31
Judges: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member, and C. M. Garg, Judicial Member
The appeal was filed by Sri Chaudhary against the PCIT’s order dated 05.03.2021, directing the AO to levy a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The appellant contended that the PCIT’s order was invalid as the penalty was not imposed within the prescribed time frame as per Section 275(1A) of the Act.
The appellant raised several grounds challenging the PCIT’s directive, including:
The case centered on whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was justified. The appellant argued that the AO had made necessary inquiries and the assessment order was valid. The PCIT, however, directed the AO to levy a penalty, which the appellant claimed was not implemented within the stipulated time frame.
As per Section 275(1A) of the Income Tax Act, the penalty order should be passed within the later of six months from the end of the month in which the appellate order is received by the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, or within the financial year in which the proceedings are completed. In this case, the due date for levying the penalty was 30.09.2021, but no penalty order was passed by the AO by that date.
The tribunal examined the facts and the legal provisions under Section 275(1A). It noted that the penalty order had not been passed by the AO within the prescribed time frame, rendering the PCIT’s directive infructuous. The tribunal emphasized that since the AO did not implement the penalty order within the stipulated period, the revisionary order under Section 263 could not stand.
The tribunal set aside the PCIT’s order dated 05.03.2021, directing the AO to levy the penalty under Section 271(1)(c), and restored the original assessment order dated 19.12.2018. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.
Order pronounced in the open court on 31 July 2023.
Sd/- (Dr. B. R. R. Kumar) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Sd/- (C. M. Garg) JUDICIAL MEMBER
Delhi; Dated: 31 July 2023.
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(A)
5. DR
Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi.
Date of dictation: 11.07.2023
Date on which the typed draft is placed before the dictating member: 30.07.2023
Date on which the typed draft is placed before the other member: 30.07.2023
Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS: 31.07.2023
Date on which the fair order is placed before the dictating member for pronouncement: 31.07.2023
Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr. PS/PS: 31.07.2023
Date on which the final order is uploaded on the website of ITAT: 31.07.2023
Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk: 31.07.2023
Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk: 31.07.2023
The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order: 31.07.2023
Date of dispatch of the order: 31.07.2023.
Sri Chaudhary vs Pr. CIT – ITA 517/DEL/2021: Penalty Levy Dispute
Manage the increasing number of hearings effortlessly by leveraging the legal AI revolution We are India's Leading revolutionary AI-powered legal platform where you can get enough insights into top cases and judgements.
Research Platform