Jyoti Ranjan Roy, Kolkata v. PCIT-17, Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 1015/KOL/2017 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 10-11-2017 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 101523514 RSA 2017
Assessee PAN ADLPR2179P
Bench Kolkata
Appeal Number ITA 1015/KOL/2017
Duration Of Justice 5 month(s) 30 day(s)
Appellant Jyoti Ranjan Roy, Kolkata
Respondent PCIT-17, Kolkata, Kolkata
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 10-11-2017
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Tags No record found
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 10-11-2017
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 11-05-2017
Judgment Text
C IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH C KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1015 / KOL / 2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2006-07 JYOTI RANJAN ROY BD-2 SECTDOR-1 SALT LAKE CIITY KOLKATA-64 [ PAN NO.ADLPR 2179 P ] V/S . PR. CIT-17 UTTARAPAN BUILDING DS4 2 ND FLOOR ULTADANGA KOLKATA-54 /APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI T.K. CHAKRBORTY ADVOCATE /BY RESPONDENT SHRI . MALLIKARJUNA CIT-DR /DATE OF HEARING 06-09-2017 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 10-11-2017 / O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDE R OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-17-KOLKATA PASSED U/S 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) DATED 21.03. 2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. SHRI T.K. CHAKRABORTY LD. ADVOCATE APPEARED ON BEH ALF OF ASSESSEE AND SHRI G.MALLIKARJUNA LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE APP EARED ON BEHALF OF REVENUE. 2. GROUND NO. 1 TO 4 ARE INTER-RELATED AND THEREFOR E BEING TAKEN UP TOGETHER. SOLITARY INTER-CONNECTED ISSUE RAISED BY ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT LD. PR.CIT ERRED IN HOLDING THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER AS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. 3. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE ORDE R OF AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE THAT ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ENGAGED IN THE ITA NO.1015/KOL/2017 A.Y. 2006-07 JYOTI RANJAN ROY VS. PR. CIT-17 KOL. PAGE 2 BUSINESS OF CONSULTANCY SUPERVISION PLANNING AND DESIGNING ESTIMATING AND EVALUATION. THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSI DERATION WAS FRAMED U/S. 143(3)/263 OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 31.03.2015 W HEREIN THE ADDITION OF 1 62 75 000/- WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED I NVESTMENT. 4. HOWEVER THE LD. PR.CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT FROM T HE ABOVE ORDER OBSERVED THAT THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT HAS NOT BEEN INITIATED BY THE AO. THEREFORE HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY AO IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INT EREST OF REVENUE ON ACCOUNT OF NON-INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1 )(C) OF THE ACT. 5. LD. PR. CIT U/S. 263 OF THE ACT ALSO OBSERVED TH AT THE ORDER FOR THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS MADE EARLIER ON TWO OCCASIONS U /S 144 AND 263/144 OF THE ACT WHEREIN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1) (C) OF THE ACT WAS INITIATED ON ACCOUNT OF IMPUGNED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. THE RELEVANT DETAILS OF THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT ORDERS ARE EXTRACTED BELOW:- SLNO. AUTHORITY ORDER(S) DATE OF ORDER U/S REMARKS 1 ASSESSING OFFICER ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT 31.12.08 U/S 144 ADDITION OF 1 62 75 000 2 CIT(A) AGAINST THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DT. 31.12.08 31.12.09 U/S 250 DISMISSING THE APPEAL 3 CIT 263 REVISION ORDER 31.1.11 U/S 263 SET ASIDE ASSESSMENT ORDER 4 ASSESSING OFFICER 2 ND SEC. ASSESSMENT ORDER 25.8.11 263/144 ADDITION OF 1 62 75 000 5 CIT(A) AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 25.8.11 1.10.13 U/S 251 DISMISSING THE APPEAL 6 CIT U/S 263 REVISION DATED 25.8.11 4.3.14 U/ 263 REVISION OF THE ORDER NOTE: PENALTY ORDER U/S. 271(1)(C) WAS PASSED ON 27 .03.2014 7 ASSESSING OFFICER 3 RD ASSESSMENT ORDER 31.3.15 143(3)/263 CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF 1 62 75 000 NOTE: AO IN ITS ORDER DATED 31.3.5 U/S. 143(3)/263 OMITTED TO INITIATE THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C) HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE PENALTY ORDER PAS SED U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT DATED 27.03.2014 PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO DELETED THE PENALTY VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 29.09.2016 ON THE FOLL OWING GROUNDS:- ITA NO.1015/KOL/2017 A.Y. 2006-07 JYOTI RANJAN ROY VS. PR. CIT-17 KOL. PAGE 3 I) THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S. 263/144 DATED 2 5.08.2011 WAS SET ASIDE BY LD. PR. CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT TH EREFORE PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED; II) THE PENALTY ORDER WAS PASSED BEYOND THE LIMITAT ION PERIOD; FROM THE ABOVE FACTS LD. PR. CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT OBSERVED THAT PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WAS INITIATED BY THE AO IN TWO ASSESSME NT ORDERS PASSED ON 31.12.2008 AND 25.08.2011 RESPECTIVELY BUT THE AO O MITTED TO INITIATE THE SAME IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED ON 31.03.2015. THEREFORE THE LD. PR. CIT WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ORDER DATED 31.03.2015 PASSED BY THE AO IS ERRONEOUS IS IN SO FAR AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERE ST OF REVENUE ON ACCOUNT OF NOT INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C ) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY LD. PR. CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN WHY THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT SHOULD NOT BE INITIATED. IN COMPLIANCE THERETO ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT FOR THE SAME ASSES SMENT YEAR PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C)OF THE ACT BY THE AO HAS ALREADY BEEN DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER DATED 29.09.2016 THEREFORE THERE IS QUESTION FOR FURTHER INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. TH E ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DOES NOT BECOME ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE IF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS H AVE NOT BEEN INITIATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD RELIE D ON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. C.R. SWAMY REPORTED IN 254 ITR 158 (MAD). THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED ON THE JUDG MENT OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SUDARSHAN TALKIES REPORTED IN 200 ITR 153 (DEL). HOWEVER LD. CIT DISREGARDED THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 3.1 THE ABOVE WRITTEN SUBMISSION HAS BEEN DISCUSSED WITH THE LD. A.R. IN THE HEARING HELD ON 21.02.2017. IN THE ABOVE WRITTE N SUBMISSION THE LD. A.R. HAS FIRST POINTED OUT THAT THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY T HE AO U/S.271(1)(C) FOR THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. 2006-07 HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-15 AS BAD IN LAW BY HIS ORDER DATED 29.09.2016 AND HEN CE THE QUESTION OF FURTHER INITIATION OF PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) DOES NO T ARISE. THIS CONTENTION OF THE LD. A.R. HAS NOT BEEN FOUND TO BE CORRECT BECAUSE T HE EARLIER PENALTY ORDER WAS PASSED ON THE BASIS OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PAS SED U/S.144/263 DATED 25.08.2011 WHICH ITSELF HAS BEEN SET ASIDE AND WHEN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITA NO.1015/KOL/2017 A.Y. 2006-07 JYOTI RANJAN ROY VS. PR. CIT-17 KOL. PAGE 4 ITSELF INITIATING THE PENALTY PROCEEDING U/S.271(1) (C) DID NOT SURVIVE THE QUESTION OF LEVYING OF PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) DOES N OT ARISE. THE SECOND GROUND OF DELETING THE PENALTY WAS THAT THE PENALTY ORDER WAS PASSED BEYOND THE LIMITATION PERIOD AND HENCE SUCH PENALTY ORDER BEI NG TIME BARRED CANNOT SURVIVE BUT IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE PENALTY ORDER WAS NOT SUSTAINABLE ON MERIT. THEREFORE. FIRST CONTENTION OF THE LD. A.R. HAS BEEN REJECTED. 3.2 THE SECOND CONTENTION RAISED BY THE LD. A.R. IS THAT THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT - VS.- CR. K. SWAMY R EPORTED IN 254 ITR (158) HELD THAT NON-INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDING U/S .271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DID NOT RENDER THE ASSESSMENT ERRONEOUS OR PRE-JUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE AND THE CIT CANNOT INVOK E JURISDICTION OF 263 OF THE I.T. ACT FOR SUCH NON-INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEED ING U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE LD. A.R. IN THIS REGARD ALSO REFERRED TO ANOTH ER DECISION BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT -VS- SUDERSHAN TALKIES REPORTED IN 200 ITR 153(DELHI). I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ABOVE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON B Y THE LD. A.R. AFTER GOING THROUGH THESE CASE LAWS IT HAS BEEN FOUND THAT DEC ISION OF HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IS BASED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE DELH I HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT -VS- SUDERSHAN TALKIES (SUPRA) AND IN THE DECIS ION OF CIT -VS- SUDERSHAN TALKIES (SUPRA) THE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS RELIED UP ON ITS OWN DECISION IN THE CASE OF ADDL. CIT -VS- J.K.D'COSTA (1982) 133 ITR-L . IN THIS REGARD I RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT AFTER GOING THROUGH THE OR DER OF HORI'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT -VS- J.K. D'COSTA (SUPRA) RELIED UPON IN THE DECISIONS CITED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH CO URT IN THE SUBSEQUENT DECISION OF CIT VS- SURENDRA PRASAD AGARWAL REPORTE D IN 2005 142 TAXMANN 653 (ALLAHABAD) HAS NOT AGREED WITH THE VIEW HON'BL EBLE DELHI HIGH COURT THEY HAVE RATHER FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF HON'BLE M ADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ADDL. CIT -VS- INDIAN PHARMACE UTICALS (1980) 123 ITR 874 AND IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COUR T IN THE ABOVE CITED DECISION AS UNDER. 'IT IS ALSO AFORESAID THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSE SSMENT ITSELF. IF HE FAILS TO INITIATE OR RECORD HIS SATISFACTION FOR TH E INITIATION OF THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS IT WOULD BE A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CON BE SAID TO BE ERRONEOUS AS HE HAS NOT DECIDED A POINT NOR RECORDED A FINDING O N AN ISSUE WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN DONE OR DECIDES IT WRONGLY AS HE LD BY THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF SARIYO DISTILLERY (SUPRA). THUS THE OMI SSION OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER TO INITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT RENDERS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ERRONEOUS A ND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. ' ON THE ISSUE BEFORE ME ABOUT THE ISSUING THE DIRECT ION TO THE AO U/S.263 FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDING U/S.271(1)(C) NO OTHER DECISION OTHER THAN THE DECISION OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT AND A SUBSEQUE NT DECISION OF HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN WHICH THE DECISION OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT WAS FOLLOWED HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO MY NOTICE BY THE ASSE SSEE RATHER THERE ARE OTHER DECISIONS OF HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT ALS O IN THE CASE OF CIT -VS- ITA NO.1015/KOL/2017 A.Y. 2006-07 JYOTI RANJAN ROY VS. PR. CIT-17 KOL. PAGE 5 ASSOCIATED CONTRACTORS CORPORATION (2005) 145 TAXMA NN 356 CIT-VS- SMT. KIRAN JAISWAL (2006) 153 TAXMANN 399 CIT-VS- ASHOK CONSTRUCTION CO. (2005) 147 TAXMANN 37 (ALLAHABAD) IN WHICH IT HAS B EEN HELD THAT NON- INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDING BY THE ASSESSING A UTHORITY RENDERS THE ORDER TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PRE-JUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF RE VENUE AND THEREFORE THE SAID MATTER CAN BE REVISED U/S.263. AS FAR AS THE MERIT OF THE CASE IS CONCERNED WHEN ON THE SAME ADDITION IN ORIGINAL ORDER PENALTY UJS 271(L)(C) IS INITIATED THERE IS NO QUESTION OF NOT INITIATING PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) ON THAT ADDITION A GAIN MADE IN SUBSEQUENT REVISED ORDER SPECIALLY WHEN THAT ADDITION IS CONF IRMED IN APPELLATE PROCEEDING. THEREFORE NON-INITIATION OF PENALTY PR OCEEDING U/S.271(1)(C) ON SAME ADDITION IN THE REVISED ORDER IS NOTHING BUT A N ERROR COMMITTED BY THE AD AND BECAUSE OF SUCH ERROR THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO HAS BECOME ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS PRE-JUDICIAL TO THE I NTEREST OF REVENUE IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS OF THE CASE AND FOLLOWING THE DE CISIONS OF HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT AND ALSO THE HON'BLE MADHYA PR ADESH HIGH COURT I HOLD THAT NON-INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDING U/S. 271(L)(C) BY THE AD IN THIS CASE DESPITE MAKING SAME ADDITION IN THE REVISED O RDER DATED 31.03.2015 AS IT WAS MADE IN THE ORIGINAL ORDER ON ACCOUNT OF UNE XPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S.69A AMOUNTING TO RS.1 62 75 000/- HAS RENDERED THE SAID AS ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO AS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS PR E-JUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE THEREFORE THE AO IS DIRECTED TO RE-EXAMIN E THE INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDING U/S.271(1)(C) ON THE BASIS OF SAME ADDIT ION THAT WAS MADE IN THE ORIGINAL ORDER DATED 31.12.2008 AND THEN AGAIN IN T HE REVISED ORDER DATED 31.03.2015 ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN RBI TAXABLE BOND NOT DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE AND TO THIS EXTENT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE O F THE AO. 4. ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S.263 /143(3) DATED 31.03.2015 IS SET ASIDE TO THE EXTENT OF INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDING U/S.271(1)(C) AFTER EXAMINING THE NATURE OF ADDITIO N MADE U/S.69A ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN RBI TAXABLE BONDS. RES T OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31.03.2015 SHALL REMAIN INTACT AS IT WAS PASS ED. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER OF LD. PR. CIT ASSESS EE HAS COME UP IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US FILED PAPER BO OK WHICH CONTAINS ANNEXURE-A TO G AND SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISION OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT REFERS TO THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THUS LD. PR. CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT CANNOT EXPAND HIS POWER TO DEAL WITH PENALTY PROCEE DINGS WHICH ARE NOT BEFORE HIM. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) HA S ALREADY DELETED THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT THE ORD ER WAS TIME BARRED. HE PRAYED BEFORE THE BENCH THAT THE ISSUE MAY BE DECID ED ON MERIT. ITA NO.1015/KOL/2017 A.Y. 2006-07 JYOTI RANJAN ROY VS. PR. CIT-17 KOL. PAGE 6 ON THE OTHER HAND LD DR VEHEMENTLY RELIED ON THE O RDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LIMITED ISSUE FOR OUR ADJUDICATION I S THAT LD. CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT HELD THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO AS E RRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE ON THE GROUN D THAT PENALTY PROCEEDING WAS NOT INITIATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN THIS REGARD WE FIND THAT HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SURENDRA PRASAD AGRAWAL (2005) REPORTED IN 275 ITR 113 (ALL) AFTER CONSIDERING THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SURENDRA TALKIES REPORTED 200 ITR 153 (DEL) AS WELL AS CIT VS. C.R. K. SWAMI REPORTED IN 254 ITR 158 (DEL) HAS HELD THAT NON INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IN THE ASSESS MENT ORDER AMOUNTS TO ERROR CAUSING PREJUDICE TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. THE R ELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE ORDER REPRODUCED BELOW:- IT IS WELL ESTABLISHED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSME NT ITSELF. IF HE FAILS TO INITIATE OR RECORD HIS SATISFACTION FOR THE INITIAT ION OF THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WOULD BE A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CAN BE SAID TO BE ERRONEOUS AS HE HAS NOT DECIDED A POINT NOR RECORDED A FINDING ON AN ISSUE WHICH OUGH T TO HAVE BEEN DONE OR DECIDES IT WRONGLY. THUS THE OMISSION OF THE ITO T O INITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT REN DERS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. [PARA 18] THEREFORE THE TRIBUNAL WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDIN G THAT THE FAILURE TO INITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT DID NOT RENDER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE I NTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THE COMMISSIONER HAD THE JURISDICTION TO REVISE SUC H AN ORDER. FROM THE ABOVE PROPOSITION WE OBSERVE THAT NON INI TIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS RENDERS T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENU E. THUS IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. PR. CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT. HOWEVER WE FURTHER NOTE THAT THERE IS A TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED U/S 275 OF THE ACT TO PASS A PENALTY ORDER WHICH READS AS UNDER:- 9 [ BAR OF LIMITATION FOR IMPOSING PENALTIES. 275. 1 [(1)] NO ORDER IMPOSING A PENALTY UNDER THIS CHAPTE R SHALL BE PASSED ITA NO.1015/KOL/2017 A.Y. 2006-07 JYOTI RANJAN ROY VS. PR. CIT-17 KOL. PAGE 7 2 [(A) IN A CASE WHERE THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT OR OT HER ORDER IS THE SUBJECT- MATTER OF AN APPEAL TO THE 3 [***] COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) UNDER SECTION 246 4 [OR SECTION 246A ] OR AN APPEAL TO THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SECT ION 253 AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH T HE PROCEEDINGS IN THE COURSE OF WHICH ACTION FOR THE IMPOSITION OF PENALT Y HAS BEEN INITIATED ARE COMPLETED OR SIX MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE ORDER OF THE 5 [***] COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OR AS THE CASE MAY BE THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IS RECEIVED BY THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR C OMMISSIONER WHICHEVER PERIOD EXPIRES LATER : 6 [ PROVIDED THAT IN A CASE WHERE THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT OR OT HER ORDER IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF AN APPEAL TO THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) UNDER SECTION 246 OR SECTION 246A AND THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) PASSES THE ORDER ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2 003 DISPOSING OF SUCH APPEAL AN ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY SHALL BE PASSED B EFORE THE EXPIRY OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE COU RSE OF WHICH ACTION FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY HAS BEEN INITIATED ARE COMPL ETED OR WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE ORD ER OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) IS RECEIVED BY THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER WHICHEVER IS LATER;] (B) IN A CASE WHERE THE RELEVANT ASSESSM ENT OR OTHER ORDER IS THE SUBJECT- MATTER OF REVISION UNDER SECTION 263 7 [OR SECTION 264 ] AFTER THE EXPIRY OF SIX MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH SUCH ORDE R OF REVISION IS PASSED; (C) IN ANY OTHER CASE AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE COURSE OF WHICH ACTION FOR THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY HAS BEEN INITIATED ARE COMPLETED OR SIX MONTHS FROM T HE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH ACTION FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IS INITIATED WHICHEVER PERIOD EXPIRES LATER.] IN THIS CONNECTION NO ARGUMENT WAS ADVANCE BY LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE WE REFRAIN OURSELVES FROM ADJUDICATING T HE SAME AND THUS WE ARE INCLINED TO KEEP THE ISSUE OPEN. IN VIEW OF THE ABO VE WE HOLD THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY LD. PR. CIT U/S. 263 OF TH E ACT IS CORRECT AND AS PER THE PROVISION OF LAW. CONSEQUENTLY GROUNDS RAISED BY ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE STANDS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 10/ 11/2017 SD/- SD/- ($ &) ( &) (N.V.VASUDEVAN) (WASEEM AHMED) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) KOLKATA *DKP SR.P.S (- 10 / 11 /201 7 ITA NO.1015/KOL/2017 A.Y. 2006-07 JYOTI RANJAN ROY VS. PR. CIT-17 KOL. PAGE 8 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1 . /APPELLANT-JYOTI RANJAN ROY BD-2 SECTOR-1 SALT L AKE CITY KOLKATA-64 2. /RESPONDENT-PR. CIT-17 UTTARPN BUILDING DS4 2 ND FLOOR ULTADANGA KOL-54 3. 3 4 / CONCERNED CIT KOLKATA 4. 4- / CIT (A) KOLKATA 5. 7 $$3 3 / DR ITAT KOLKATA 6. < / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ /TRUE COPY/ SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY HEAD OF OFFICE/DDO 3