TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 1055
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l is not maintainable in view of the order of this Tribunal in the case of SRO, Meppayur-Kozhikode vs DIT (Intelligence) in ITA No.280/Coch/2013 and S.P. No.50/Coch/2013 order dated 18-07- 2013. The ld.counsel for the assessee has filed a copy of the order of this Tribunal in SRO, Meppayur-Kozhikode (supra). 3. We have carefully gone through the order of this Tribunal in SRO, Meppayur-Kozhikode (supra). For the purpose of convenience, the relevant portion of the order of this Tribunal is reproduced as under: "4. We have considered rival submissions on either side and also perused the material available on record. The question arises for consideration is whether this Tribunal could entertain an appeal by the Sub Registrar, Meppayur- Kozhik....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel or an order passed under section 154 in respect of such order." Nowhere in section 253 mentions the order passed by Director of Income-tax (Intelligence) or any other officer of the Incometax Department levying penalty u/s 271FA is appealable before this Tribunal. This 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 in section 253 of the Act against the order levying penalty u/s 271FA, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the present appeal is not maintainable before this Tribunal. 5. Now coming to the direction given by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the provisions of section 253 of the Act. Therefore, merely because the remedy available u/s 246A(q) of the Act may not be effective and efficious that alone will not give any jurisdiction to this Tribunal to entertain this appeal. 7. Further, we are of the considered opinion that when the provisions of section 271FA was introduced in the statute book by the Finance Act, 2004 with effect from 01-04-2005 the consequential amendment to section 253 was omitted to be carried out. This omission may be unintended. One may argue that an appeal is provided against the order of penalty u/s 271 in 253(1)(a) and 253(1)(c) of the Act, therefore, all branches of section 271 i.e. from 271A to 271G are included in section. This argument may not be corr....