2022 (9) TMI 496

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Registry has noted that there is a delay of 189 days in filing the above appeal. The assessee has filed for condonation of delay by way of an affidavit stating that the impugned order was received by the Accountant of the assessee company and misplaced by him. After the follow up action was by the Director, the misplaced order was found and resultant in filing this appeal with a delay of 148 days (189 days as noted by the Registry) in filing the above appeal. None appeared on behalf of the assessee in spite of service of notice. 3. The Ld. Sr. D.R. Mr. R.R. Makwana appearing for the Revenue submitted before us that this appeal is not maintainable u/s. 253 of the Act as against an order passed by the Director of Income Tax (I&CI) levying ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er (Appeals) before the 1st day of October, 1998 or, as the case may be, a Commissioner (Appeals) under section 154, section 250, section 271, section 271A or section 272A; or (b) an order passed by an Assessing Officer under clause (c) of section 158BC, in respect of search initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets requisitioned under section 132A, after the 30th day of June, 1995, but before the 1st Day of January, 1997; or (ba) an order passed by an Assessing Officer under sub- section (1) of section 115VZC; or (c) an order passed by a Commissioner under section 12AA or under clause (vi) of sub-section (5) of section 80G or under section 263 or under section 271 or under section 272A or an or....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... one may claim that an appeal is provided u/s 246A(q) of the Act. We are conscious that the CIT(A) is equivalent in rank that of the Director of Incometax (Intelligence), therefore, the appeal before CIT(A) may not be an effective and efficious remedy available to the Sub Registrar, Meppayur-Kozhikode against whom penalty was levied. However, this Tribunal being a quasi judicial authority established under the Income-tax Act, cannot travel beyond 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 provi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....notice of the concerned authority about the omission to provide appeal before the Tribunal for making consequential amendment to section 253 of the Act in case the department found that the omission is unintended. 8. In view of the above discussion, the appeal of the Sub Registrar, Meppayur- Kozhikode is dismissed as not maintainable before this Tribunal. However, it is made clear that it is open to the Sub Registrar, Meppayur-Kozhikode to challenge the order passed by the Director of Income-tax (Intelligence) levying penalty u/s 271 FA of the Act before the appropriate forum in a manner known to law." 4. In view of the above order of this Tribunal which is equally applicable for the present assessee, the appeal filed by the Sub Regis....