TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 816X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sdiction to exercise powers and perform the functions of an income-tax authority under this Act lies with ITSC. This proposition has been reiterated by the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. Omaxe Limited [ 2014 (5) TMI 147 - DELHI HIGH COURT ] Once that is so, then AO did not had any jurisdiction to initiate or levy penalty u/s 271AAC. CIT (A) should have held that the penalty order itself is without jurisdiction and infructuous but instead held that the CIT (A) does not have any jurisdiction. Since AO did not have any jurisdiction to pass any order or levy any penalty on the same matter which is sub-judice before the ITSC then impugned order dated 27.01.2020 levying penalty is quashed as infructuous. On this ground alone, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and 245D(2C), which was pending for final disposal u/s.245D(4) as on the date of passing impugned order u/s.154 by A.O., in view of Sec.245F, the exclusive jurisdiction to pass order uls.154 lied only with Hon'ble ITSC, consequently the impugned order uls.154 passed by A.O. is without jurisdiction. 6. That by invoking the provisions of Sec.154, the penalty initiated u/s.270A of the I.T. Act cannot be substituted by the penalty proceedings uls.271AAC and such order and action of A.O. is clearly outside the scope of prov. of Sec.154 of the I.T. Act. 7. That as no penalty proceedings have been initiated u/s.271AAC during the course of asstt. proceedings, the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s.271AAC vide order u/s.154 is absolutel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t fact which was there on record and also culled from the impugned order and submissions of the ld. counsel for the assessee that, the assessee against the assessment order dated 08.08.2019 in quantum proceedings had filed a petition u/s 245C before the Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) on 05.12.2019. Ld. ITSC admitted the petition and order u/s 245D(1) was passed on 18.12.2019. Thus, the entire assessment was sub-judice and was within the domain of ITSC. When the AO passed an order u/s 154 levying penalty u/s 271AAC in respect of additions made u/s 68, the petition of the assessee already stood admitted and was allowed to be proceeded with ITSC vide order dated 18.12.2019 and accordingly, the AO was precluded from passing any order o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion to the case. 7. Thus, wherein an application made u/s 245C has been allowed to be proceeded with u/s 245D, then the ITSC shall, until and unless an order is passed under sub-section (4) of section 245D, subject to the provisions of section 245D(3), the exclusive jurisdiction to exercise powers and perform the functions of an income-tax authority under this Act lies with ITSC. This proposition has been reiterated by the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. Omaxe Limited 364 ITR 423 (Del.). Once that is so, then AO did not had any jurisdiction to initiate or levy penalty u/s 271AAC. Ld. CIT (A) should have held that the penalty order itself is without jurisdiction and infructuous but instead held that the CIT (A) does not hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
