TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Penalty upheld under Income Tax Act despite appeal, statutory remedies available</h1> <h3>JIJU JOSEPH JOSEPH Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE</h3> JIJU JOSEPH JOSEPH Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE - TMI Issues:Challenge to penalty under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act for under reported income relating to assessment year 2018-19.Analysis:The petitioner challenged the penalty imposed under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, amounting to Rs. 42,24,835, being 50% of the tax for the under reported income for the assessment year 2018-19. The petitioner contended that since the assessment order for the year in question was under appeal, the imposition of penalty was premature and lacked authority. The petitioner argued that the penalty was intricately linked to the assessment order and the quantum of tax imposed, which had not attained finality.The court considered the arguments presented by both parties and noted that the assessment order had been passed, and the income for the relevant assessment year had been assessed. The court emphasized that the pendency of an appeal against the assessment order did not prohibit the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 270A of the Act. Delaying penalty proceedings due to the pending appeal would be contrary to the statutory scheme.The court highlighted that in tax matters, interference by the court is limited, especially when statutory remedies are available to address the grievances of taxpayers. Referring to a recent decision, the court reiterated the parameters for court interference under Article 226. The court found that the petitioner's case did not meet these parameters and emphasized that statutory remedies for appealing the penalty were available to the petitioner. The court concluded that the writ petition lacked merit and dismissed it, while allowing the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedies available.In conclusion, the court upheld the imposition of the penalty under Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, emphasizing that the pendency of an appeal against the assessment order did not preclude initiating penalty proceedings. The court highlighted the availability of statutory remedies for challenging the penalty and dismissed the writ petition, advising the petitioner to pursue the appropriate legal avenues for relief.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
