2024 (10) TMI 1290 - SCH - Income Tax

Penalty imposed u/s 271G - default of the notice requiring the petitioner/assessee to produce the relevant documents u/s 92D(3) - Whether TPO did not possess the requisite jurisdiction to initiate penalty proceedings and its imposition subsequently on 16.01.2015? - as decided by HC 2018 (10) TMI 298 - DELHI HIGH COURT since event of default occurred in March, 2014 i.e. well prior to the date of coming into force the amendment (i.e. 01.10.2014), the impugned order was wholly without jurisdiction. HELD THAT - This petition is covered by a decision of this Court in the case of Virkey Chacko 1993 (8) TMI 1 - Supreme Court held that the event of default defines the jurisdiction of the concerned authority, who may proceed to initiate the penalty proceedings.When the Income-tax Officer reached the satisfaction that the assessee had concealed his income and made the assessment order on March 27, 1972, the amended provisions of section 274 (2) were in operation and they entitled the Income-tax Officer to impose penalty in cases where the amount of income in respect of which particulars had been concealed were, as here, less than Rs. 25,000. Hence, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed.

Summary

The Supreme Court of India dismissed the Special Leave Petition citing a previous case (Virkey Chacko v. Commissioner of Income Tax). The delay was condoned and any pending applications were disposed of. The petitioner was represented by Mr. V Chandrashekhara Bharathi, Adv., Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR, Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Adv., Mrs. Gargi Khanna, Adv., and Mrs. Aakansha Kaul, Adv., while the respondent was represented by Ms. Mahua Kalra, AOR.