2014 (1) TMI 1055 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal dismissed by ITAT Cochin for penalty under Income-tax Act section 271FA

The Sub Registrar Sub Registrar Office Versus The DIT (Intelligence)

The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin held that the appeal by the Sub Registrar against the penalty under section 271FA of the Income-tax Act was not ... Maintainability of Appeal to the Tribunal u/s 254 of the Act – Penalty levied u/s 271FA of the Act – Held that:- The decision in SRO, Meppayur-Kozhikode vs DIT (Intelligence)[2014 (1) TMI 102 - ITAT COCHIN]followed - Nowhere in section 253 mentions the order passed by Director of Income Tax (Intelligence) or any other officer of the Income Tax department levying penalty u/s 271FA is appealable before the Tribunal - The Tribunal being a quasi-judicial authority established under the provisions of the Income Tax Act cannot travel beyond the provisions of the Act - Therefore, unless and until an appeal is specifically provided section 253 of the Act against the order levying penalty u/s 271FA, the Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the present appeal is not maintainable before this Tribunal. Consent of a litigant party will not confer any jurisdiction of a judicial or quasi-judicial authority unless and until it is otherwise conferred by the legislature - Therefore, the consent/direction of the Director of Income Tax (Intelligence) will not confer any jurisdiction on the Tribunal unless sit is provided for in the income tax Act by the Parliament. The legislature treated sections 271 and 271A as separate and independent sections - section the reference of section 271 in section 253(1)(a) or 253(1)( c) may not be included section 271FA - the omission to include section 271FA in section 253 may be unintended – thus, it is open to the department to bring to the notice of the concerned authority about the omission to provide appeal before the Tribunal for making consequential amendment to section 253 of the Act in case the department found that the omission is unintended – thus, appeals are not maintainable before the Tribunal against the order of the Director of Income Tax (Intelligence) levying penalty u/s 271FA of the Act –though, the assessee is at the liberty to challenge the impugned order of the Director of Income Tax (Intelligence) before the appropriate forum in a manner known to law – Decided against Assessee. Issues involved:Appeal against penalty u/s 271FA of the Income-tax Act - Maintainability of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin.Analysis:The appeal was filed by the Sub Registrar against the penalty imposed under section 271FA of the Income-tax Act by the Director of Income-tax (Intelligence), Kochi. During the hearing, the counsel for the assessee and the ld.DR argued that the appeal was not maintainable based on a previous order of the Tribunal in a similar case. The Tribunal examined the provisions of section 253 of the Act, which outline the orders that can be appealed before the Tribunal. It was observed that section 253 does not specifically mention the order levying penalty u/s 271FA as appealable before the Tribunal. The Tribunal emphasized that it cannot go beyond the provisions of the Act and concluded that unless an appeal is explicitly provided in section 253 against the penalty u/s 271FA, the appeal is not maintainable.The Tribunal also addressed the contention that an appeal could be made under section 246A(q) of the Act, which allows appeals against orders imposing penalties under Chapter XXI. While acknowledging that section 271FA falls under Chapter XXI, the Tribunal highlighted that the CIT(A) might not provide an effective remedy compared to the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal reiterated that it cannot exceed the scope of section 253 and entertain appeals not explicitly covered under it.Moreover, the Tribunal noted that when section 271FA was introduced, the corresponding amendment to section 253 was omitted, possibly unintentionally. It clarified that sections 271 and 271A to 271G are separate and independent sections, and section 271FA should not be assumed to be included under section 271 based on this omission. The Tribunal suggested that if the omission was unintended, the department could bring it to the attention of the appropriate authority for a consequential amendment to section 253.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Sub Registrar, emphasizing that it was not maintainable before the Tribunal. However, it allowed the Sub Registrar to challenge the penalty order before the appropriate forum in accordance with the law. The Tribunal's decision was based on the lack of specific provision for appeals against penalties u/s 271FA in section 253 and the need for adherence to the statutory framework.Judgment Summary:The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin ruled on the maintainability of an appeal by the Sub Registrar against the penalty imposed under section 271FA of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal determined that the appeal was not maintainable before it as section 253 did not explicitly provide for appeals against penalties u/s 271FA. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of adhering to the statutory framework and suggested that any unintended omissions in the legislation should be rectified through appropriate channels. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal but allowed the Sub Registrar to challenge the penalty order before the appropriate forum in accordance with the law.