Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
Popular Search: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: VAT Audit :: form 3cd :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: VAT RATES :: TDS :: empanelment :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: cpt :: due date for vat payment
« From the Courts »
  Dr. Gautam Sen vs. CCIT (Bombay High Court)
 Dr. Gautam Sen vs. CCIT (Bombay High Court)
 DCIT vs. Shivshankar R. Sharma (ITAT Mumbai)
 ACIT vs. Jawaharlal Agicha (ITAT Mumbai)
 CIT vs. M/s. D. Chetan & Co (Bombay High Court)
 Makes further amendments to Notification no. 157/90-Customs dated 28th March, 1990 regarding temporary admission under the ATA Carnet
 Appointment of Common Adjudicating Authority by DGRI - 2/2016-Customs
 ransfers Of Hon’ble Members Of The ITAT (September 2016)
 M. G. Contractors Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
 Haryana State Road & Bridges Development Corporation Ltd vs. CIT (P&H High Court)
 Dharamshibhai Sonani vs. DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)

DCIT, Circle 10(1) New Delhi vs. M/s Dangson Hotel & Restaurants P.Ltd. B 28, Lawrance road New Delhi
March, 18th 2014
                    DELHI BENCHES : "B" NEW DELHI

                      AND SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JM

                          ITA no. 4438/DEL/2012
                          Assessment Year: 2002-03

DCIT, Circle 10(1)             vs.   M/s Dangson Hotel & Restaurants P.Ltd.
New Delhi                            B 28, Lawrance road
                                     New Delhi

                                     PAN: AAACD 9744 M

                                C.O. 23/Del/2013
                         (In ITA no. 4438/DEL/2012)
                           Assessment Year: 2002-03

M/s Dangson Hotel & Restaurants P.Ltd. vs.      DCIT, Circle 10(1)
New Delhi                                       New Delhi

           ITA nos. 2667, 2668, 2669, 2670, 2671/DEL/2012
                 Assessment Years: 2001-02 to 2006-07

DCIT, Circle 10(1)             vs.   M/s Dangson Hotel & Restaurants P.Ltd.
New Delhi                            B 28, Lawrance road
                                     New Delhi

  (Appellant)                                    (Respondent)

                     Appellant by:- Shri Mora Bhupal Reddy, CIT, DR
                        Respondent by:- Shri AK Jain, CA
                                                                      Page 2 of 5



       All these appeals are filed by the Revenue and are directed against

separate orders of the Ld.CIT, New Delhi for the Assessment Year 2001-02 to


2.     The assessee also filed a C.O. no.23/Del/2013 for the Assessment Year


3.     The short point for consideration in these appeals, is whether penalty

order passed u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act, is barred by limitation.

3.1.   The dates and events which are important are as follows:-

The ITAT has disposed off the quantum appeal on 30.4.2010. The same was

received in the Office of Ld.CIT, Central II, New Delhi on 19.7.2010. The order

u/s 271(1)(c ) was passed on 28.2.2011, which is beyond the period of six

months from the date of receipt of the order of the ITAT by the CIT, Central II.

The assessee has raised the issue of limitation, before the Assessing Officer.

The Assessing Officer rejected the contention by holding that the order of the

ITAT was received by CIT-IV, on 30.9.2010 and that after decentralization, the

CIT-IV is the jurisdictional CIT. On appeal the First Appellate Authority upheld

the contention of the assessee that the order of penalty is barred by limitation.

4.     Aggrieved the Revenue is in appeal before us.
                                                                      Page 3 of 5

5.    The Ld.D.R. submitted that initially these group cases were notified for

being assessed centrally under the jurisdiction of CIT(Central)-II, New Delhi.

Thereafter the CCIT has passed an order u/s 127 of the Act on 28.5.2010,

decentralizing the cases from the Central Circle. Due to a mistake these group

of cases, did not find place in this notification of decentralization and the CCIT

passed a Corrigendum on 17.9.2010 including these group of cases.              He

argued that the Corrigendum relates back to 28.5.2010 i.e. the date of order

passed u/s 127.    It was submitted that     consequent to decentralization the

Jurisdictional Commissioner, is not CIT, Central II, but is CIT-IV and that the

CIT-IV   received the copy of the order of the ITAT only on 30.9.2010 and

consequently an order u/s 271(1)(c) passed on 28.2.2011 is within time.

6.    This contention of the Ld.D.R. cannot be accepted. Prior to passing of

the Corrigendum by the CCIT to his order u/s 127 No.CIT(C )-II/C&T/2011-

234 dt. 17.9.2010, the order of the Tribunal was received by the CIT, Central

II, New Delhi on 19.7.2005. In our considered view the limitation as prescribed

in S.275(1)(a), is to be counted from this date. Thus, we uphold the order of

the First Appellate Authority that the penalty is levied in all these cases are

barred by limitation.

7.    The assessee has filed a paper book running into pages 1 to 19 to

demonstrate that the order of the ITAT was received by the CIT, Central Circle

I, New Delhi before the jurisdiction of the case was transferred to CIT-IV.    He

also wanted to draw the attention of this Bench to certain replies obtained in

response to applications made under the Right to Information Act. As we have
                                                                        Page 4 of 5

upheld the order of the First Appellate Authority, we need not go into these


8.    In the result all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed.

9.    For the Assessment Year 2002-03 there is a discussion on merits of the

case. The Cross Objection by the assessee for the Assessment Year 2002-03 is

also on the issue on merits. In view of our above find that all the appeals by

the Revenue are barred by limitation, we would not go into the merits of the

case as well as the C.O. filed by the assesse, as it would be an academic

exercise. In the result, the C.O. filed by the assessee is dismissed.
10. In the result the appeals filed by the revenue for all the AYs are dismissed and the C.O. filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2002-03 also stands dismissed as `infructuous'. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 13th March, 2014. Sd/- Sd/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (J.SUDHAKAR REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: the 13th March, 2014 *manga Page 5 of 5 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. Appellant; 2.Respondent; 3.CIT; 4.CIT(A); 5.DR; 6.Guard File By Order Asst. Registrar
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Custom Software Development Outsourcing Custom Software Development Offshore Cus

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions