2014 (4) TMI 341

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ividual filed his return of income for the AY under dispute on 28/08/2009 declaring income of Rs. 24,16,360/-. In course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee had made cash deposits to the extent of Rs. 45 lakhs in his bank accounts. The Assessing Officer, therefore, asked the assessee to explain the source of such deposits. The assessee in response to the query made by the Assessing Officer, replied that his deceased father has left cash in hand, which was received by the assessee and deposited in his bank account. In support of such contention, the assessee submitted returns of his father. The Assessing Officer, however, was not fully convinced with the explanation of the assessee and was of the view that th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... It was contended by the assessee that after completion of the assessment u/s 143(3) vide order dated 21/12/2011, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee in response to the show cause notice issued has also submitted his reply on 05/01/2012. It was submitted that meanwhile though there was a change in the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, the previous Assessing Officer, still has proceeded to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) vide order dated 29/06/2012 of an amount of Rs. 10,19,700/-. It was submitted that while doing so no fresh opportunity was given to the assessee. It was further contended that when penalty order was passed the officer concerned had no jurisdiction over the assessee as ju....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the penalty on the assessee. Further, there was no occasion for the assessee to request for the needed opportunity of being heard or to raise the objection on the issue of lack of jurisdiction to the Assessing Officer, who has levied the penalty, since no fresh notice was issued by the Assessing Officer from the date of passing the order on 21/12/2011 and the date of transfer of case from ACIT to ITO, on 26/03/2012. Hence, there was no opportunity for the appellant to question the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer at the time of levying the penalty, since the penalty was levied based on the notice issued by the earlier officer and reply furnished to it. Thus, based on the facts, it reveals that as on the date of passing the order u/s 2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed AR, on the other hand, relied upon the order of the CIT(A). 8. As can be seen from the facts on record, which have been clearly brought out at paragraph 4.7 of the CIT(A)'s order extracted hereinabove, the assessment order in case of the assessee was passed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 21/12/2011 by the ACIT, Circle -10(1). However, the Addl. CIT of the concerned range, in exercise of power u/s 120 of the IT Act transferred the case of the assessee from the jurisdiction of ACIT, Circle 10(1), Hyderabad to the ITO, Ward -10(2), Hyderabad vide order No. Addl.CIT/R-10/2011-12, dated 26/03/2012. Admittedly, the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has been passed on 29/06/2012. Therefore, it is abundantly clear that when the p....