9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 473 - HC - Income TaxPenalty order u/s 41 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 - HELD THAT - According to us, the second aspect of the matter to which we have made reference hereinabove by adverting to the provisions of Section 46(4)b) of the B.M. Act, in fact, was not articulated in the reply filed by the petitioner/assessee on 09.03.2023. That being said, the petitioner/assessee s reply was on record which, for some reason, was not taken into account by the concerned officer while passing the impugned penalty order. To our minds, this alone would be sufficient to set aside the impugned penalty order, with a direction to the concerned authority to conduct a de novo exercise.It is ordered accordingly.
Issues involved: Challenge to penalty order u/s 41 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 for AY 2019-20. Jurisdictional issue regarding the authority who can pass the penalty order.
Challenge to Penalty Order: The petitioner/assessee challenged the penalty order dated 29.03.2023 passed u/s 41 of the B.M. Act. The petitioner had filed a reply on 09.03.2023, arguing that penalty proceedings should be stayed due to the pending appeal on quantum levy before the CIT(A). However, the officer proceeded with the penalty order without considering this reply, leading to an error in the order. The Court found this sufficient to set aside the penalty order and directed a fresh assessment. Jurisdictional Issue: The petitioner's counsel contended that the penalty order should have been passed by an officer of specific rank as per Section 46(4)(b) of the B.M. Act. It was argued that the current officer's rank did not meet the statutory requirement. Although this argument was not raised in the petitioner's reply, the Court acknowledged the oversight by the officer in not considering the reply. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to raise this jurisdictional issue before the concerned authority for appropriate action. Conclusion: The High Court set aside the penalty order due to the officer's failure to consider the petitioner's reply and directed a fresh assessment. The Court also allowed the petitioner to raise the jurisdictional issue regarding the authority's rank for passing the penalty order. The decision did not delve into the merits of the case, leaving it to the concerned authority to decide on the penalty imposition.
|
