9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 341X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 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. - I.T.A. No. 1579/Hyd/2013 - - - Dated:- 2-4-2014 - Shri Chandra Poojari And Andshri Saktijit Dey,JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram For the Respondent : Shri Harjeet Singh ORDER Per Saktijit Dey, JM: This appeal by the Revenue is directed agains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 30 lakhs as unexplained cash deposit u/s 68 of the Act and completed the assessment accordingly. The assessee also accepted the income determined by not filing any appeal against the assessment order. In consequence of the addition made in the assessment order, penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by issuing show cause notice to the assessee. In reply to the show cause notice, the assessee explained that he has agreed for the addition to buy peace with the Department and requested for not imposing penalty. The Assessing Officer, however, refusing to accept the explanation of the assessee, proceeded to pass an order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on 29/06/2012 imposing penalty of Rs. 10,19,700/-. 4. Being aggrieved of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Officer had no jurisdiction over the assessee as on the date the penalty order was passed, the jurisdiction stood transferred to the ITO, Ward -10(2) by virtue of order u/s 120 dated 26/03/2012 of the Addl. CIT. The relevant findings of the CIT(A) are as under: 4.7 Regarding the issue of lack of jurisdiction for the Assessing Officer who has passed the penalty order, where the jurisdiction over the case was transferred to the other officer, the facts of this case are that the ACIT, Circle -10(1) passed the assessment order for the year under reference u/s 143(3) on 21/12/2011, while making an addition of Rs. 30.00 lakhs on account of treating the cash deposits into bank accounts of the appellant, as unexplained credits and the case wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2012, where the jurisdiction stand transferred to ITO, Ward -10(2), Hyderabad by virtue of order u/s 120 dated 26/03/2012. As such the order of penalty u/s 271(1)(c), whereby a penalty of Rs. 10,19,700/- levied, become infructuous. Accordingly, the order of penalty stand nullified. Since the order of penalty is held to be cancelled, the other issues raised by the appellant are considered to be disposed in favour of the appellant. 7. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the other materials on record. The learned DR tried to make out a case by contending that since the Assessing Officer is within the same range headed by Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer had no jur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
