Allowing the appeal the Court held that the first appellate order was received in the financial year 2006-2007, and hence the penalty should have been imposed within March 31, 2008 as per the proviso, especially when the order was one passed after June 1, 2003. The orders were passed on March 31, 2009 much after the limitation period. They were not valid.(AY. 1995-96, 1996-97)
Mahesh Kr. Agarwal @ Mahesh Agarwal v. Dy. CIT (2025) 483 ITR 57 (Pat)(HC)
S. 275 : Penalty-Bar of limitation-First appellate order was received in the financial year 2006-2007-The penalty should have been imposed within March 31, 2008 as per the proviso, especially when the order was one passed after June 1, 2003-The orders were passed on March 31, 2009 much after the limitation period-Not valid.[S.260A, 275(1)(a)]
Leave a Reply