TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (2) TMI 911
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed of by this common order. The facts apposite for the purpose of disposal of writ petitions, illustratively, are taken from Civil Writ No. 12322 of 2011-Sub-Registrar, Pali vs. Union of India & Ors. The petitioner, Sub-Registrar, Pali, of the Revenue Department has preferred this writ petition against IT Department being aggrieved by imposition of penalty under s. 271FA of the IT Act, 1961 vide ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case of Director of IT vs. Ravi Vijay (2012) 252 CTR (Raj) 228 : (2012) 75 DTR (Raj) 202that against the penalty order under s. 271FA passed by the CIT(CIB), Rajasthan, Jaipur, an appeal would lie to the CIT(A), as the first appeal under s. 246A(1)(q) of the Act of 1961 and therefore the Tribunal had rightly dismissed the assessee's appeal as not maintainable. The relevant para 6 of the said ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct before the Tribunal, this Court cannot on analogy hold that because the said orders passed by an officer of the rank of CIT are appealable before the Tribunal under s. 253 of the 1961 Act, an order under s. 271FA of the 1961 Act also passed by an officer of the rank of CIT should also be appealable before the Tribunal. In my considered view even though orders of penalty under ss. 271 and 272A o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lable to the petitioner, Sub-Registrar against the impugned penalty order before the first appellate authority i.e., CIT(A), this Court need not to go into the questions of merits on the imposition of penalty against the Sub-Registrar and he has the liberty to file appeal before the CIT(A), against the penalty order dt. 12th March, 2008 impugned in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the prese....