2014 (4) TMI 341 - AT - Income Tax

Cancellation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act Jurisdiction to impose penalty - Held that - The assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) of the Act - the Addl. CIT of the concerned range, in exercise of power u/s 120 of the IT Act transferred the case of the assessee from the jurisdiction of ACIT, Circle 10(1), Hyderabad to the ITO, Ward -10(2), Hyderabad vide order No. Addl.CIT/R-10/2011-12, dated 26/03/2012 - the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has been passed on 29/06/2012 - it is abundantly clear that when the penalty order was passed the concerned officer did not have the jurisdiction over the assessee, which stood transferred to ITO, Ward -10(2), Hyderabad with effect from 26/03/2012 - the penalty order could not have been passed by the ACIT, Circle -10(1) as she had no jurisdiction over the assessee on the date penalty order was passed - there is no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in declaring the order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, to be a nullity due to lack jurisdiction and consequently cancelling the penalty Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdictional challenge regarding penalty imposition under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad involved the challenge by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A)-VI, Hyderabad, canceling the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for the assessment year 2009-10. The case revolved around the explanation provided by the assessee regarding cash deposits in bank accounts, with the Assessing Officer questioning the source of the deposits. The assessee claimed the cash belonged to his deceased father, but the Assessing Officer was not fully convinced and added the amount as unexplained cash deposit. Subsequently, penalty proceedings were initiated, leading to a jurisdictional challenge by the assessee before the CIT(A).

The CIT(A) analyzed the jurisdictional issue and found that the Assessing Officer who passed the penalty order did not have jurisdiction over the assessee at the time of passing the order. The jurisdiction had been transferred to another officer by an order under section 120 of the IT Act. The CIT(A) held that the penalty order was passed without proper jurisdiction and opportunity for the assessee to challenge it. Therefore, the CIT(A) declared the penalty order as null and void due to lack of jurisdiction, ultimately canceling the penalty.

The Appellate Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the penalty order was indeed passed by an officer lacking jurisdiction over the assessee, as the jurisdiction had been transferred to a different officer prior to the penalty imposition. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, stating that the decision relied upon by the Revenue was not applicable to the facts of the case. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s order, declaring the penalty as null and void due to the jurisdictional issue, and upheld the cancellation of the penalty.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal's judgment highlighted the significance of proper jurisdiction in penalty imposition under the IT Act, emphasizing that penalties must be imposed by officers having jurisdiction over the assessee. The case serves as a reminder of the procedural requirements and the necessity of affording the assessee the opportunity to challenge penalties within the appropriate jurisdictional framework.