Rajesh Bindal, J.

1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (for short, "the Tribunal"), has referred the following question of law, which emerges from its common order dated 22-6-1990, in I. T. A. Nos. 1007 to 1010 (ASR)/1989, for the assessment years 1977-78 to 1980-81:

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that the penalty order dated 16-3-1988, passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, is beyond the period of limitation

2. Briefly the facts, as noticed in the statement of the case, are that the assessee for the assessment year 1977-78 filed his return on 16-3-1981, declaring a loss of Rs. 10,232. While framing the assessment on 28-3-1982, income was determined at Rs. 46,205, which was set aside by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 30-3-1984, to the file of the assessing officer. After remand of the case by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the assessment was again framed vide order dated 14-3-1986, and the income was assessed at Rs. 21,264. The penalty proceedings culminated into an order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as " the"), on 16-3-1988, whereby penalty of Rs. 14,633 was levied on the assessee. Appeal against the order of levying penalty was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). However, further appeal by the assessee before the Tribunal was accepted. The Tribunal while setting aside the penalty held that in terms of Section 275(a)(ii) of thethe order of penalty having been passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed in the section, the order of penalty was not sustainable.

3. We have heard learned Counsel for the revenue and perused the paper book.

4. Learned Counsel for the revenue has relied upon Section 275 of theto state that in the case in hand even though the original order of the assessment was passed on 28-3-1982, the same was the subject matter of appeal and after remand by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, fresh order of the assessment was passed on 14-3-1986, and if the period of limitation is counted from that date, the penalty order passed on 16-3-1988, is well within the limitation as prescribed under Section 275 of the. Accordingly, the view expressed by the Tribunal is not in conformity with the provisions of the.

5. To appreciate the controversy involved in the present case, it would be 5 relevant to extract the relevant provisions of Section 275 of the Act, which, at the relevant time, read as under:

275. No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be passed

(a) in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is thesubject matter of an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioneror the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 246 or an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under Sub-section (2) of Section 253, after the expiration of a period of

(i) two years from the end of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed, or

(ii) six months from the end of the month in which the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or the Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Appellate Tribunal is received by the Commissioner,

whichever period expires later ;

(b)in any other case, after the expiration of two years from the end of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed.

Explanation.-In computing the period of limitation for the purposes of this section,

(i) the time taken in giving an opportunity to the assessee to be reheard under the proviso to Section 129 ;

(ii) any period during which the immunity granted under Section 245H remained in force ; and

(iii) any period during which a proceeding under this Chapter for the levy of penalty is stayed by an order or injunction of any court, shall be excluded.

6. A perusal of Section 275 of the Act, as reproduced above, shows that the 6 same provides for bar of limitation for imposition of various penalties under Chapter XXI of the. Sub-clause (i) of Clause (a) thereof provides that where the relevant assessment order is the subject-matter of appeal under Section 246 or under Section 253 of the Act, no order of penalty can be passed after the expiry of the period of two years from the end of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for imposition of penally has been initiated, are completed. Stress could be laid on the word "completed" used in the provision. Sub-clause (ii) of Clause (a) thereof provides that the maximum period is six months from the end of the month in which the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, or the Commissioner (Appeals) or, as the case may be, the Appellate Tribunal is received by the Commissioner. However, the last date would be the date which expires later out of the either of two clauses above. Sub-clause (b) of Section 275 provides that in other cases the maximum period for levy of penalty would be two years from the end of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed. This sub-clause deals with limitation for levy of penalty in a case where penalty is levied simpliciter after assessment.

7. In our opinion, the case in hand would fall within the provisions of Section 275(a) for the purpose of calculation of limitation for passing the order of penalty. Sub-clause (i) thereof clearly provides the period of limitation to be two years from the end of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed. The word "completed" has to be given its full meaning in a case where in appeal, the assessment order, during the course of which the penalty proceedings are initiated, is set aside and the case is remanded back for the fresh assessment. The assessment proceedings cannot be held to be completed till such time the order is passed in the remand proceedings. In the present case also, the undisputed facts on record are that the original assessment was framed on 28-3-1982. In appeal, the order of the assessment was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the assessing officer vide order dated March 30,1984. Thereafter, the remand case was decided vide order dated March 14, 1986, and the penalty order was passed on 16-3-1988. If we calculate the period from the date, the remand order was passed, i.e., on 14-3-1986, the penalty order passed on 16-3-1988, would be well within the limitation as prescribed under Sub-clause (i) of Section 275(a) of theas it is that date which shall be considered to be the date on which the proceedings, in the course of it, the action of imposition of penalty had been initiated, were completed.

8. In view of the plain language of the provision itself, in our view, it cannot be held that the order for imposition of penalty was beyond the period of limitation, as prescribed under Section 275 of the.

We find that a similar view has been expressed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Seetharama Lakshmi Rice and Groundnut Oil Mill Contractors Co. v. ITO : [1978]111ITR212(AP) and the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Seth Panchhi Ram and Co. v. CIT .

In view of our above discussions, the question referred is answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.

The reference is disposed of accordingly.-