2024 (7) TMI 786

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sustaining the penalty order. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. C.I.T., (Appeals), Lucknow has erred while not appreciating that there was reasonable cause for not furnishing the requisite information. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. C.I.T., (Appeals), Lucknow failed to considering that the power in respect of an inquiry, in a case where no proceedings is pending, shall not be exercised by any income tax authority below the rank of Principal Director or Principal Commissioner of Income Tax or C.I.T. [Other than the Joint Director or Dy. Director or Asstt. Director] without prior approval of Pr. Director or Director or as the case may be Pr. C.I.T. or C.I.T. 4. In the fact .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... penalty proceedings and imposed a penalty of Rs. 35,300/- under section 272(2)(C)of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 4. During the pendency of appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed a Writ Petition, vide Writ Tax No.359 of 2014, challenging the notices issued under section 133(6) of the Act before the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court. The Hon'ble High Court, vide order dated 30.7.2014 disposed of the Writ Petition, directing the Department to expeditiously decide the appeal of the assessee against the orders of penalty imposed. The ld. CIT(A) finally dismissed the appeal of the assessee, upholding the penalty levied under section 272A(2)(c) of the Act, observing that the assessee h .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e heard both the parties and perused the material on record. It is an undisputed fact that the ITO by issuing notice under section 133(6) of the Act required the assessee to furnish information regarding the registered sale/purchase deeds for a certain period. The assessee failed to furnish the same, hence he imposed a penalty of Rs. 35,300/- under section 272A(2)(c) of the Act, which was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). Before us, the submission of the assessee was that the requisite information was wrongly furnished to the Assistant Inspector General (Registration), Khushinagar by the Deputy Registrar, Kasia, Khushinagar vide letter No.54/U.Ni-13 dated 1.8.2013. For the sake of ready reference, a scanned copy of the same is reproduced below: .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X