1.  United Health Group Information Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, W.P.(C) 3478/2015, Date of Pronouncement: 10.04.2015, Delhi High Court

Whether tribunal was justified in extending the period of stay of demand beyond 365 days in case hearing could not be taken up for reason not attributable to assessee?

Held_Yes

In the above case, assessee had filed an appeal before the tribunal. The tribunal stayed the demand on conditional basis. The assessee paid part of tax demand as per the condition imposed by the tribunal. The period of 365 days had expired during the period case was pending before the tribunal. The case was not taken up for hearing within the stipulated time of 365 Days, for reasons not attributable to assessee. The assessee filed an WRIT before the Hon’ble High Court seeking extension of stay of demand.

The Hon’ble high court allowed the appeal in favour of assessee stating that since the tribunal had extended stay on conditional basis and the said appeal is in the midst of hearing the appeal, it would be in the interest of justice that the stay order granted by the Tribunal is continued till the disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal. This has also been stated clearly in case of CIT v. Maruti Suzuki (India) Limited: [WP(C) 5086/2013].

(Please click here for judgment)

2.  ITO Vs. JKD Capital & Finlease Ltd., I.T.A. No. 5443/Del/2013, Date of Pronouncement: 27.03.2015, ITAT - Delhi

Whether CIT (A) was justified in treating penalty order passed after receiving order of CIT (A) in  quantum appeal as time barred, where the issue in quantum is appeal is purely different from issue related to penalty proceedings?

Held_Yes

In the above case, the Ld. AO initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in assessment order dated December 2007. The Ld. AO completed the penalty proceedings in march 2012 after issuing proper show cause to the assessee. The Ld. AR contended that the act of Ld. AO is time barred as the matter pending in quantum proceedings were nowhere related to the penalty order passed u/s 271E. Further, AR contended that the penalty proceedings must be completed within the FY in which it was initiated or within six months from end of the month in which it was initiated, whichever expires earlier.

The Hon’ble tribunal upheld the decision of Ld. CIT (A) following the decision in case of CIT v. Hissaria Bros.[(2007) 291 ITR 244 (Raj.)] and stating that the date of order of CIT (A) in quantum appeal is not relevant as matter involved in it has no bearing on issue of penalty.

(Please click here for judgment)