Concessional penalty for search-disclosed unreconciled jewellery applies where substantive disclosure conditions are met despite omission from origina...
The ITAT held that penalty proceedings under section 270A require valid jurisdiction, which must be assumed by the AO at the time of assessment or reassessment by issuing a show cause notice specifying the charge of under-reporting or misreporting. The CIT(A) cannot assume dual jurisdiction to levy penalty on the same facts once the AO has initiated penalty proceedings. In this case, the AO had assumed jurisdiction regarding surrendered income disclosed via revised return post-survey under section 133A, but penalty proceedings were kept pending. The CIT(A)'s issuance of penalty notice under section 274 read with 270A and passing of penalty order without valid jurisdiction was held to be legally untenable. Consequently, the penalty imposed by the CIT(A) was quashed, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The ITAT held that penalty proceedings under section 270A require valid jurisdiction, which must be assumed by the AO at the time of assessment or reassessment by issuing a show cause notice specifying the charge of under-reporting or misreporting. The CIT(A) cannot assume dual jurisdiction to levy penalty on the same facts once the AO has initiated penalty proceedings. In this case, the AO had assumed jurisdiction regarding surrendered income disclosed via revised return post-survey under section 133A, but penalty proceedings were kept pending. The CIT(A)'s issuance of penalty notice under section 274 read with 270A and passing of penalty order without valid jurisdiction was held to be legally untenable. Consequently, the penalty imposed by the CIT(A) was quashed, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
