Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements

Home › All Judgements › CIT vs. Wander Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)

CIT vs. Wander Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 2, 2012 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Click here to download the judgement (wander_271_1_c_penalty_quantum_appeal.pdf)


If Quantum Appeal admitted by Court, s. 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings may be kept in abeyance till the decision of the High Court on the merits

The assessee’s quantum appeal against the Tribunal’s order was admitted by the High Court. In the s. 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings, the Tribunal, instead of deciding the issue whether the assessee was liable to penalty, restored the issue to the AO with a direction to decide the issue of levy of penalty after the decision of the High Court in the quantum appeal. The department challenged the Tribunal’s order on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to issue such an order as it would in effect extend the time limit prescribed in s. 275 for passing the penalty order (6 months from the end of the month in which the Tribunal’s order is received by the CIT). HELD by the High Court dismissing the appeal:

The assessee’s quantum appeal has been admitted by the High Court. If the assessee succeeds in the quantum proceedings, it would not even be necessary to consider the s. 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings and so no prejudice has been caused to the department qua the penalty proceedings. The department’s apprehension that the penalty proceedings may be barred by limitation u/s 275(1A) is not well founded. In any event, the apprehension is set at rest by directing that in the event the proceedings are held to be barred by limitation, this appeal shall stand revived automatically and without further orders of the Court.

Note: In Nayan Builders it was held that the mere admission of the quantum appeal by the High Court means that the issue is debatable & s. 271(1)(c) penalty cannot be levied. A contrary view has been taken in Khanna & Annandhanam

Related Judgements

  1. FGP Ltd vs. CIT (Bombay High Court) 

    Though the assessee was following the mercantile system and was entitled to royalty under an agreement, the royalty was not assessable in accordance with the principles of real income, in view of the dispute pending in arbitration.
    Read more ›
  2. CCE vs. Shree Rubber Plast (Bombay High Court Full Bench) 

    In Shruti Colorants a Division Bench held that where there was a delay in filing Appeals u/s 35G of the Central Excise Act (= s. 260A of the IT ACT), the Court had no power to condone the delay by taking recourse to s. 5 of the Limitation Act.
     
    This…
  3. EMA India vs. ACIT (Allahabad High Court) 

    The judgement of the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 256 ITR 1 where it was held that when an order u/s 143 (3) is passed, a presumption is raised that it has been passed on application of mind and that…
  4. Mercedes Benz vs. UOI (Bombay High Court) 

    The view taken by the Tribunal is not the correct approach. If the Tribunal wanted to differ to the earlier view taken by the Tribunal in the identical set of facts, judicial discipline required reference to the larger bench. One co-ordinate bench finding fault with another co-ordinate bench is…
  5. Vodafone International Holdings B.V. vs. UOI (Bombay High Court) 

    On facts, the argument that the transaction involved merely a sale of a share of a foreign company by one non-resident to another is not acceptable. It would be simplistic to assume that the entire transaction between the non-residents was fulfilled merely upon the transfer of a single share…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*