CIT empowered to exercise power u/s 263 over penalty orders passed u/s 271(D) and 271D by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax.
In a recent judgment, Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that CIT is empowered to exercise jurisdiction u/s 263 over penalty orders passed u/s 271(D) and 271D by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax.
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 4156 (2024) (07) HC
In the instant case, the assessee had filed an Income Tax Appeal challenging the order passed by the ITAT confirming the order passed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr.CIT) whereby the order passed under Section 271(D) of the of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by the JCT was reviewed and penalty orders passed by the JCIT were held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and the order passed by the JCIT was cancelled.
It was submitted by the assessee that the powers contained in section 263 of the Act, excludes the jurisdiction of the Pr.CIT to review the orders passed by the JCIT under Section 271 (D) and 271(E). On the strength of explanation to Section 263; explanation-1, it was submitted that, the instant mention in explanation (A) would be only in the cases where the Pr.CIT would be empowered to review the orders of the CIT. However, in this case, the appellant was not falling under Section 140 of the Act.
The Hon’ble High Court observed that in view of the provisions as contained in section 263 of the Act, the explanation does not supersede or exclude the main provision of Section 263 (1), it only explains circumstances wherein orders passed in specific matters relating to various sections provided therein, can also be looked into. It is an inclusive clause and is not exclusive one.
Thus, the Hon’ble High Court opined that the word “any proceedings under this Act as provided under Section 263(1)” will apply to all the proceedings which may be passed under the Act, which would include orders passed under Section 271(D) as well as under Section 271(E) by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax.
Accordingly, the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
Download Judgment 4156 (2024) HC Click Here >>
When assessee failed to explain source of purchases expenditure, estimating profit rate was contrary to provision of Section 69C which…
Income Tax Department not trusted even upon its lawyers – SC slams ITD on adopting a long process resulting delay…
When goods are loaded in two trucks with one e-way bill specifically mentioning both truck numbers, no intention to evade…
GOI makes four new Labour Codes effective from 21st November 2025 Government of India has announced that the four Labour…
Provident fund dues definitely have a first charge over claim of bank under SARFAESI Act – Supreme Court In a…
CBDT notifies the Capital Gains Accounts (Second Amendment) Scheme, 2025 MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Revenue) (CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT…