TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 432X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against penalty order passed by A.O. levying penalty under section 271FA of the 1961 Act would lie with Learned CIT(A), keeping in view provisions of Section 246A(1)(q) of the 1961 Act. CIT(A) has dismissed all the appeals taking a view that first appeal against penalty order passed by A.O. under section 271FA levying penalty for non-compliances of Section 285BA(1) of the 1961 Act, would lie directly to ITAT, which view of the Learned CIT(A) was held to be an erroneous view by the tribunal vide common order dated 24.03.2022. There could be a bonafide belief on the part of the appellant to file an appeal directly with the tribunal against penalty order passed by A.O. u/s 271FA of the 1961 Act for non compliance of provisions of Section 285BA of the 1961 Act, but however the fact of the matter is that the first appeal against the penalty order passed by AO u/s 2711FA shall lie with ld. CIT(A) and not with tribunal. Thus, we are inclined to dismiss this appeal filed by the appellant before the tribunal as a non-est appeal being not maintainable , with a further direction that appellant, if so advised, may file first appeal before the Learned CIT(A) against the penalty order pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the 1961 Act. No reply was filed by the appellant before the AO. Show cause notice was also issued by AO to the appellant on 10.06.2019, u/s 271FA read with Section 274 of the 1961 Act, show causing the appellant as to why penalty should not be imposed on the appellant for failure to furnish statement of financial transaction. Again no compliance was made by the appellant. Further opportunity was also given by A.O, but, the appellant again did not make any compliance, which led A.O. to impose penalty of Rs.4,74,500/- under section 271FA of the I.T. Act, 1961 for non-compliance of provisions of Section 285BA(1) of the 1961 Act, vide penalty order dated 17.12.2019 passed by AO u/s 271FA for ay: 2018-19. 4. Aggrieved by penalty order passed by AO u/s 271FA of the 1961 Act, the appellant has filed present appeal before the tribunal. The appellant did not file first appeal before Learned CIT(A), who is an appropriate First Appellate Authority for adjudicating appeal arising from penalty order passed by AO u/s 271FA of the 1961 Act. 4.1. Smt. Madhuri Gautam, Sub-Registrar,Saidpur appeared before the Division Bench and filed provisional receipts for filing statement of financia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad taken a view that first appeal against penalty order passed by A.O. levying penalty under section 271FA of the 1961 Act would lie with Learned CIT(A), keeping in view provisions of Section 246A(1)(q) of the 1961 Act. The relevant extract of the aforesaid tribunal order dated 24.03.2022 are reproduced as hereunder : 4. We have heard both the rival parties and perused the material on record. We have observed that penalty order dated 26.03.2012 was passed by ld. AO u/s. 271FA of the 1961 Act , levying penalty of Rs.57,200/- against the assessee, for default in complying with the provisions of Section 285BA(1) of the 1961 Act. The said penalty order was challenged by assessee by filing first appeal before ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the grounds that the appeal against penalty order passed u/s 271FA for infringement of Section 285BA(1) of the 1961 Act, is not subject to challenge before ld. CIT(A) , keeping in view provisions of Section 246 and 246A of the 1961 Act, and hence the appeal was dismissed by ld. CIT(A) as infructuous being not maintainable with ld. CIT(A) and directions were issued to the assessee to file its appeal with appropriate auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an appeal before the CIT(Appeals) before filing an appeal directly before this Tribunal. In view of this position, we are dismissing all the four appeals filed by the appellant. b. Chennai-tribunal decision in the case of Sub- Registrar, Salem v. The DIT(CIB)(I/C), Chennai in ITA no. 2009, 2013, 2015 and 2016/Mds/2010, vide common order dated 02.06.2011, wherein the tribunal has taken a similar view that an appeal against penalty order passed u/s 271FA shall lie with ld.CIT(A) keeping in view provision of Section 246A(1)(q) of the 1961 Act. Thus, under these circumstances as narrated above, we are setting aside appellate order passed by ld. CIT(A) as not sustainable in the eyes of the law and restore the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of all the grievances/grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in its appeal before ld. CIT(A), by holding that ld. CIT(A) is the correct designated appellate authority to adjudicate first appeal arising from an penalty order passed by AO u/s 271FA of the 1961 Act. Needless to say that ld. CIT(A) will give proper and adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee in set aside remand proceeding while adjud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
