Validity of show-cause notice for levy of penalty questioned by the assessee ne…
Validity of show-cause notice for levy of penalty questioned by the assessee needs re-examination by the AO in terms of the judgment in CIT vs. Eli Lilly & Co. (India) (P) Ltd. & Ors. (2009) 223 CTR (SC) 20 : (2009) 21 DTR (SC) 74 : (2009) 312 ITR 225 (SC); impugned judgment of the High Court directing the assessee to move the AO in the penalty proceedings warrants no interference.
Validity of show-cause notice for levy of penalty questioned by the assessee needs re-examination by the AO in terms of the judgment in CIT vs. Eli Lilly & Co. (India) (P) Ltd. & Ors. (2009) 223 CTR (SC) 20 : (2009) 21 DTR (SC) 74 : (2009) 312 ITR 225 (SC); impugned judgment of the High Court directing the assessee to move the AO in the penalty proceedings warrants no interference.
MITSUBISHI CORPORATION VS JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-(Supreme Court)
Writ—Maintainability—Show cause notice for penalty—Assessee had questioned the validity of the show-cause notice for levy of penalty by filing writ petition, which was not entertained by the High Court on the ground that the question could be raised before the competent authority—Matter needs re-examination by the AO in terms of the judgment in CIT vs. Eli Lilly & Co. (India) (P) Ltd. & Ors. (2009) 223 CTR (SC) 20 : (2009) 21 DTR (SC) 74 : (2009) 312 ITR 225 (SC)—Hence, the impugned judgment of the High Court warrants no interference—Mitsubishi Corporation vs. Jt. CIT (2002) 173 CTR (Del) 294 affirmed
(Para 2)
Heard learned counsel on both sides.
Since the assessee had questioned the validity of show-cause notice dated 2nd March, 2001, by filing Civil Writ Petition No.2533 of 2001 in the Delhi High Court, we are of the view that, in the light of the judgement of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Eli Lilly & Company (India) Private Limited, reported in [2009] 312 I.T.R.225, the matter needs re-examination by the Assessing Officer in terms of the said judgement. In the circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgement of the High Court which has directed the assessee to move the Assessing Officer in the penalty proceedings.
Subject to above, the assessee’s civil appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
[S.H. KAPADIA]
[AFTAB ALAM]
New Delhi,
February 02, 2010.
×
Questions
Validity of show-cause notice for levy of penalty questioned by the assessee needs re-examination by the AO in terms of the judgment in CIT vs. Eli Lilly & Co. (India) (P) Ltd. & Ors. (2009) 223 CTR (SC) 20 : (2009) 21 DTR (SC) 74 : (2009) 312 ITR 225 (SC); impugned judgment of the High Court directing the assessee to move the AO in the penalty proceedings warrants no interference.
Write your CommentGeneric
- Reportdata/2255_JQiIe4X.pdf
