Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2018 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 298 - HC - Income TaxPenalty imposed u/s 271G - default of the notice requiring the petitioner/assessee to produce the relevant documents under Section 92D(3) - TPO did not possess the requisite jurisdiction to initiate penalty proceedings and its imposition subsequently on 16.01.2015, was not justified - Held that:- In Varkey Chacko [1993 (8) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT], the Supreme Court considered the formulation of law in Brij Mohan [1993 (8) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] and reiterated it. The assessee’s contention was that the concealment exercise – being penal in nature, committed when the return was filed and cognizance taken by the authority, by virtue of the subsequent amendment, was not legal. It was in these circumstances that the Court held that the penalty for concealment of particulars of income for furnishing inaccurate particulars would be upon the assessing authority for satisfaction in that regard. In the opinion of this Court, that judgment does not help the revenue’s answer on the charge of lack of jurisdiction and the law as enunciated in Brij Mohan and Varkey Chacko (supra) i.e. that the event of default defines the jurisdiction of the concerned authority, who may proceed to initiate the penalty proceedings. In the present case, since “event of default” occurred in March, 2014 i.e. well prior to the date of coming into force the amendment (i.e. 01.10.2014), the impugned order was wholly without jurisdiction. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|