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>Tribunal quashes CIT(A)'s orders under IT Act sections 154 and 270A for lack of jurisdiction and improper direction.</h1> <h3>Bhuramal Rajmal Surana & Sons Pvt. Ltd., Versus The ACIT Central Circle-2, Jaipur.</h3> Bhuramal Rajmal Surana & Sons Pvt. Ltd., Versus The ACIT Central Circle-2, Jaipur. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Validity of CIT(A)'s order under section 154 of the IT Act.2. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A of the IT Act.Summary:Issue 1: Validity of CIT(A)'s order under section 154 of the IT ActThe assessee contested the order dated 28.02.2022 by CIT(A)-4, Jaipur, passed under section 154 of the IT Act for the assessment year 2017-18, arguing that no proceedings were pending before CIT(A) and no directions were issued in the original appeal order to initiate such proceedings. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) is a quasi-judicial authority with appellate jurisdiction over AO's orders and can only exercise powers when an appeal is pending. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) had no jurisdiction to pass orders or issue directions in the absence of pending proceedings, rendering the order under section 154 invalid and without jurisdiction.Issue 2: Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A of the IT ActThe Tribunal examined the CIT(A)'s direction to initiate penalty proceedings under section 270A of the IT Act. The initial assessment by the AO included additions under sections 68 and 41(1), with penalties under sections 271AAC and 270A. The CIT(A) in her order dated 28.02.2022, reduced the additions and held that the provisions of section 68 and the 60% tax rate under section 115BBE were not applicable. The AO subsequently requested the CIT(A) to initiate penalty proceedings under section 270A for the trading addition sustained. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) lacked the jurisdiction to direct such initiation under section 154, as it constituted a revision rather than a rectification of the order. The Tribunal emphasized the distinction between rectification and revision, citing relevant case law, and held that the CIT(A)'s action was beyond her authority and invalid.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeal, quashing the CIT(A)'s order under section 154 and the direction to initiate penalty proceedings under section 270A, as it was without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the IT Act.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
