Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether an appeal against a penalty order that became non-appealable after the amendment to the appellate provision, but was already pending on the date of amendment, had to be treated as an appeal on transfer to the appropriate authority, and whether the appellate tribunal was right in returning the subsequent appeal on the footing that a revision alone lay.
Analysis: The amended appellate provision excluded appeals against orders imposing penalty under the specified provisions, but the third proviso expressly saved pending appeals and required their transfer to the appropriate authority, which had to deal with them as if they were appeals filed before it. The transferred proceeding did not acquire the character of a revision merely because the transferee authority otherwise exercised revisional powers. The order of the transferee authority treating the pending appeal as a revision, and the communication returning the tribunal appeal on the ground that a revision before the Commissioner was the only remedy, were contrary to the mandate of the proviso and were legally unsustainable.
Conclusion: The pending proceeding had to be treated as an appeal after transfer, and the return of the tribunal appeal was unlawful; the relief claimed by the assessee was therefore liable to be granted.