Counsel v. Kamaljeetkhosla

$~29&31 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ITA 822/2017 + PR. COMMISSIONEROF INCOMETAX-14 Mr.ZohebTAX-14Hossain,..... Through: Sr.Standmg Counsel. Versus KAMALJEETKHOSLA ..^.RespondentThrough;Mr.Rohit Kumar Gupta, AdvocatewithMs.ShayamaLimaBorha,Advocate. ^ITA 824/2017 -PR, COMMISSIONEROF INCOMETAX 14 -OF INCOMETAX INCOMETAXTAX 14.....AppellantThrough:Mr.ZohebHossam,Sr.StandmgCounsel. Versus KAMALJEETKHOSLA Through;Mr.Rohit Kumar Gupta, AdvocatewithMs.ShayamaLimaBorha,Advocate. CORAM: JUSTICES. MURALIDHARJUSTICEPRATHIBAM. SINGH ORDER20.09.2017 r.M.No.3450Q/^ni7(delayin filing) 1. Forthe reasonsexplainedin the application,the delayin filingthe appealis condoned.The applicationis disposedof. TTAs No.822/2017& 824/2017 2. Thesetwo appealsare by the Revenueagainstan order dated 12 April,2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (TTAT') in ITANo.28/Del/2010and C.O.No.214/Del/2010for the block periodApril, ITA 822/2017&ITA 824/2017 Signature Not Verified Page1of3 1996to 9^^" May, 2002. 3The shortquestionthatarisesfor considerationis whetherthe initiationofthepenaltyproceedingsby the AssessingOfficer('AO')intermsofSection158BFA(3)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') was time barredinasmuchas it wassix month'stime from the end ofthe month m beyondwhichthe orderofthe ITAT was receivedby the CommissionerofIncomeTax('CIT')(Judicial)andnotthe"concernedCIT'?. 4. The ITAT has in the impugned order relied on the decisiondated 24March, 2017 of this Courtin ITA 52/2015 {OdeonBuildersPvt. Ltd. Vs.PrincipalCommissionerofIncome Tax), and held that since the penaltyorderwastheof six monthsafterthe orderofthe ITATwas beyond periodfirst received by the CIT (Judicial),it was beyond time and, therefore,unsustainablein law. 5. It is submittedby the learnedcounselfor the Revenuethatthe decisionofthis Court in Odeon BuildersPvt. Ltd. was in the contextof an (supra)appeal under Section260A of the Act and, therefore,will not ipsofactoapply to Section 158BFA(3)(c) although the expression used in bothis the same.he submitsthat in thecase at theprovisions Secondly, presenttime the AO initiated the penalty proceedings,the decision in OdeonBuildersPvt. Ltd. (supra)had not beenpronouncedand,therefore,the saiddecisionofthis Court shouldbe held to be prospective,that is, applicable to thosecaseswheretheunderSection158 BFA wereonly proceedings (3)initiated thereafter. ITA 822/2017&ITA 824/2017^ 6. As far as the first submissionis concerned,tlie Court finds that theexpression "received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or ChiefCommissioneror PrincipalCommissioneror Commissioner"appearmgmSection158BFA(3)(c)is identicalto the expressionin Section260A(1)ofthe Act which was interpretedby this Court in Odeon BuildersPvt. Ltd.(supra)as any CIT and notnecessarilythe 'concerned'CIT. In otherwords,forthepurposeofSection158BFA(3)(c)ofthe Act,iftheorderofthe ITATwas receivedby the CIT (Judicial),the limitationof6monthswithmwhichthe penalty order had to be passed would begin to run from that dateregardless of the fact that the order of the ITAT was received by theconcernedCIT onlythereafter. 7. As far as the second submission is concerned,this Court in OdeonBuildersPvt. Ltd (supra)declaredthe law as it alwaysstood.The questionofthe saiddecisionapplyingonlyprospectivelydoes not arise.Whileit willnotresultin mattersthathave attainedfinalitybeingreopened,it will applyto casesthatare pendingat variouslevelsinthehierarchyofauthorities. 8, The Court,therefore,findsthatthereis no legalinfirmitymthe impugnedorderoftheITATgivingriseto any substantialquestionoflaw. The appealis, accordingly,dismissedwithno orderas to costs. SEPTEMBER 20,2017/ 'anb' S. MURALIDHAR, J.-.PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. ITA 822/2017&ITA 824/2017 ^