Raichur City Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Raichur V. DIT, Bangalore

ITA 1147/BANG/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5483 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 19-04-2017
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 10-08-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G KAMALADAR STANDING COUNSE L
• Assessee Lawyers: B S SUDHEENDRA
• Keywords: Application of stay; Right to appeal; Condonation of delay
• Section: 153A; 12AA; 147; 132; 10; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH, B, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1147/BA NG/2015 (ASST. YEAR 2012-13) RAICHUR CITY URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., GUNJ ROAD, RAICHUR-584 102. . APPELLANT VS. THE DY. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX INTELLIGENCE & CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, BENGALURU. . RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI B.S SUDHEENDRA, C.A RESPONDENT BY : SHRI G KAMALADAR, STANDING COUNSE L DATE OF HEARING : 19-4-2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26-4-2017 O R D E R PER LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY ITA NO.1147/ /B/15 2 THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (INTELLIGENCE & CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION), BANGALORE DATED 17 TH JUN, 2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS O F APPEAL: 1. THE LEARNED DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271FA OF THE IT. ACT, 1961 ARE ATTRACTED IN CASE OF THE APPELLANT AN D IN LEVYING A SUM OF RS. 65.500/- AS PENALTY. 2. THE APPELLANT HAD NOT COMMITTED ANY DEFAULT ATTRACTING PENALTY. THE PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED ON AN ERRONEOUS APPRECIATION OF FACTS IS TO BE DELETED IN ENTIRETY 3. THE APPELLANT HAD COMPLIED WITH PROVISIONS OF LAW AND THUS THERE WOULD BE NO DEFAULT, THE PENALTY LEVIED HAS TO BE CANCELLED. 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND ON OTHER GROUNDS TO BE ADDUCED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT IS REQUESTED THAT THE ORDER BE QUASHED OR AT LEAST THE PENALTY LEVIED BE ITA NO.1147/ /B/15 3 CANCELLED. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IN THE PRESENT CASE WAS REQUIRED TO FILE ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2012- 13 ON OR BEFORE 31/8/2013 IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSAC TION SPECIFIED IN SUB RULE (2) OF RULE 114E OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES. HOWEVER , THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FILE ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN WITHIN THE TIME STIPULATED. PURSUANT THERETO A SHOW CAUSE NOTICES WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSE SSEE. HOWEVER NO RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE SHOW NOTICE WAS FILED EVEN AF TER THE LAPSE OF MORE THAN 12 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 283BA(5) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE A SHOWN CAUSE NOTICE U/S 271FA OF T HE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 WAS ISSUE. DESPITE THAT THE ASSESEE BANK FAIL ED TO FILE ANY REPLY TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AS SUCH, THE OFFICER IMPOSED PEN ALTY OF RS.65,500/- U/S 271FA ON THE ASSESSEE. 4. FEELING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER, THE ASSESSEE FI LED AN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A UTHORITY BELOW IS REQUIRED TO BE SATISFIED AND IT WAS ENQUIRED BY THE BENCH AS TO HOW THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AUTHORITY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TA X (INTELLIGENCE & ITA NO.1147/ /B/15 4 CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION), PASSED U/S 271FA CAN BE CH ALLENGED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WITHOUT AVAILING AN OPPORTUNITY OF FILING STATUTORY APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). IN RESPONSE THERETO, THE LD AR HAS SUB MITTED THAT THOUGH THERE IS STATUTORY REMEDY PROVIDED IN THE ACT AND ON ACCO UNT OF THE ACT OFFICER WHO PASSED THE ORDER IS EQUIVALENT TO THE CIT(A) A ND, THEREFORE, THE ORDER HAS NOT BEEN CHALLENGED BEFORE THE CIT(A) U/S 246A( 1) OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED AR HAS FURTHER RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LUCKNOW TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF RAIBAREILLY DISTR ICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., 54 TAXMANN.COM 382, WHEREIN ON THE IDENTICAL ISSUE, THE COORDINATE BENCH IN PARAGRAPH 15 TO 17 HELD AS UNDER:- 15. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 253(1) OF THE ACT, IN WHICH THE ORDER OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH HAS BEEN PASSED WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX PURSUANT TO THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL COMPRISING OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CAN ONLY BE CHALLENGED BEFORE THE ITAT BY FILING AN APPEAL. IN THE LIGHT O F THESE FACTS. WHEN THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASS ED WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CAN ONLY BE CHALLENGED BEFORE THE .1 RIBUNAL. THEN HOW THE O RDER OF ITA NO.1147/ /B/15 5 THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX WHO IS EQUIVALENT IN RAN K WITH THE ID. CIT( A ) CAN BE CHALKALGED BEFORE THE ID. C IT(A). THE ONLY FORUM WHERE THIS ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME- TAX CAN HE CHALLENGED IS THE I-FAT WHICH IS HIGHER IN RANK TO THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX. 16. SO FAR AS THE VIEW TAKEN IN OTHER APPEAL, STYLE D AS HARDOI ('O-PERATIVE BANK (SUPRA) IS CONCERNED, WE F IND THAT WHILE ADJUDICATING THE IMPUGNED ISSUE IN THAT APPEAL. THE ARGUMENT WITH REGARD TO THE APPELLATE JURISDICT ION WAS NOT ADVANCED AND RELYING UPON THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 246A(1) OF THE ACT. THE ISSUE WAS ADJUDICATED. NOW, DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THIS APPEAL, THE ARGUMENTS WERE ADVANCED WITH RESPECT TO THE DEFINITION OF APPELLAT E JURISDICTION AND PROVISIONS OF SECTION 253(1) OF TH E ACT. THEREFORE, WE HAVE DECIDED TO RE-APPRECIATE THE ARG UMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PARTIES IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESA ID PROVISIONS. 17. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THA T THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN RIGHTLY FILED BEFOR E THE TRIBUNAL AND THE TRIBUNAL IS COMPETENT TO ADJUDICAT E THE APPEAL ON MERIT. ACCORDINGLY WE REJECT THE PRELIMIN ARY OBJECTION OF THE REVENUE WITH REGARD TO THE MAINTAI NABILITY OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. ACCORDINGLY WE D IRECT ITA NO.1147/ /B/15 6 THE REGISTRY TO FIX THIS APPEAL FOR HEARING ON MERI T ON 10.2.2015. 5. THE JURISDICTION OF THE TRIBUNAL TO HEAR THE AP PEAL IS PROVIDED U/S 253 OF THE ACT WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW: SECTION 253. (1) ANY ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED BY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING ORDERS MAY APPEAL TO THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGAINST SUCH ORDER (A) AN ORDER PASSED BY A [DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APP EALS)] [OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, A COMMISSIONER (APPEAL S)] UNDER BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 1998 [SECTION 154], [***] SECTION 250, [SECTION 271, SECTION 271A OR SECTION 272A]; OR [(B) AN ORDER PASSED BY AN ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER CLAUSE (C) OF SECTION 158BC, IN RESPECT OF SEARCH INITIATED UNDER SECTION 132 OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OTHER DOCUMENTS OR ANY ASSETS REQ UISITIONED UNDER SECTION 132A, AFTER THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 1995, BUT BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF JANUARY, 1997; OR] [(BA) AN ORDER PASSED BY AN ASSESSING OFFICER UNDE R SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 115VZC; OR] (C) AN ORDER PASSED BY A [(D) (E) [PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR] COMMISSIONER [UNDE R SECTION 12AA [OR UNDER CLAUSE (VI) OF SUB-SECTION (5) OF SECTION 80G] OR] UNDER SECTION 263[OR UNDER SECTION 272A] [OR UNDER SECTI ON 271] [***] OR AN ORDER PASSED BY HIM UNDER SECTION 154 AMENDING HIS ORDER UNDER SECTION 263] [OR AN ORDER PASSED BY A [ PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR] CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR A [PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OR] DIRECTOR GENERAL OR A [PRINCIPAL DIRECT OR OR] DIRECTOR UNDER SECTION 272A; [OR]] AN ORDER PASSED BY AN ASS ESSING OFFICER UNDER SUB-SECTION (3), OF SECTION 143 OR SECTION 14 7[OR ITA NO.1147/ /B/15 7 SECTION 153A OR SECTION 153C] IN PURSUANCE OF THE D IRECTIONS OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL OR AN ORDER PASSED UNDER S ECTION 154 IN RESPECT OF SUCH ORDER;] [***] FOLLOWING CLAUSE (E) SHALL BE INSERTED AFTER CLAUSE (D) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 253 BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2013, W.E.F. 1-4-2016 : (E) AN ORDER PASSED BY AN ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 143 OR SECTION 147 OR SECTION 153A OR SE CTION 153C WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE [PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR ]COMMISSIONER AS REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (12) OF SECTION 144BA O R AN ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 154 OR SECTION 155 IN RESPECT OF SUCH ORDER; [ (F) AN ORDER PASSED BY THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY UN DER SUB-CLAUSE (VI)OR SUB-CLAUSE (VIA)OF CLAUSE (23C)OF SECTION 1 0. ] (2) THE [PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR] COMMISSIONER MA Y, IF HE OBJECTS TO ANY ORDER PASSED BY A [DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APP EALS)] [BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 1998] [OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, A COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)] UNDER [SECTION 154 OR] SECT ION 250, DIRECT THE [ASSESSING] OFFICER TO APPEAL TO THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE ORDER. [(2A) THE [PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR] COMMISSIONER MAY, IF HE OBJECTS TO ANY DIRECTION ISSUED BY THE DISPUTE RESO LUTION PANEL UNDER SUB-SECTION (5) OF SECTION 144C IN RESPECT OF ANY OBJECTION FILED ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2012, BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SUB- SECTION (2) OF SECTION 144C IN PURSUANCE OF WHICH T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED AN ORDER COMPLETING THE ASSESS MENT OR REASSESSMENT, DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO APP EAL TO THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE ORDER.] (3) EVERY APPEAL UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OR SUB-SECT ION (2) SHALL BE FILED WITHIN SIXTY DAYS OF THE DATE ON WHICH THE OR DER SOUGHT TO BE APPEALED AGAINST IS COMMUNICATED TO THE ASSESSEE OR TO THE [PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR] COMMISSIONER, AS THE CA SE MAY BE : [ PROVIDED THAT IN RESPECT OF ANY APPEAL UNDER CLAUSE (B) OF SUB- SECTION (1), THIS SUB-SECTION SHALL HAVE EFFECT AS IF FOR THE WORDS 'SIXTY DAYS', THE WORDS 'THIRTY DAYS' HAD BEEN SUBS TITUTED.] [(3A) EVERY APPEAL UNDER SUB-SECTION (2A) SHALL BE FILED WITHIN SIXTY DAYS OF THE DATE ON WHICH THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE AP PEALED AGAINST IS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PURSUANCE OF T HE DIRECTIONS OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL UNDER SUB-SECTION (5) OF SECTION 144C.] ITA NO.1147/ /B/15 8 [(4) THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE ASSESSEE, AS THE CASE MAY BE, ON RECEIPT OF NOTICE THAT AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OR THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PURSUANCE OF THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL HAS BEEN PREFERRED UND ER SUB-SECTION (1) OR SUB-SECTION (2) OR SUB-SECTION (2A) BY THE O THER PARTY, MAY, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT HE MAY NOT HAVE APPEALED AGAIN ST SUCH ORDER OR ANY PART THEREOF; WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF THE RECE IPT OF THE NOTICE, FILE A MEMORANDUM OF CROSS-OBJECTIONS, VERIFIED IN THE P RESCRIBED MANNER, AGAINST ANY PART OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER (IN PURSUANCE OF THE DIRECTIONS OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL) OR DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), AND SUCH MEMORANDUM SHALL BE DISPOSED OF BY THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AS IF IT WERE AN APPEAL PRESENTE D WITHIN THE TIME SPECIFIED IN SUB-SECTION (3) OR SUB-SECTION (3A).] (5) THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MAY ADMIT AN APPEAL OR P ERMIT THE FILING OF A MEMORANDUM OF CROSS-OBJECTIONS AFTER THE EXPIRY O F THE RELEVANT PERIOD REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (3) OR SUB-SECTIO N (4), IF IT IS SATISFIED THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT PRESENTING IT WITHIN THAT PERIOD. [(6) AN APPEAL TO THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SHALL BE I N THE PRESCRIBED FORM AND SHALL BE VERIFIED IN THE PRESCRIBED MANNE R AND SHALL, IN THE CASE OF AN APPEAL MADE, ON OR AFTER THE 1ST D AY OF OCTOBER, 1998, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE DATE OF INITIATION OF THE ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS RELATING THERETO, BE ACCOMPANIED BY A FEE OF, (A) WHERE THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS COMPU TED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN THE CASE TO WHICH THE APPEAL RELATES, IS ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND RUPEES OR LESS, FIVE HUNDRED RUPEE S, (B) WHERE THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, COMPUTE D AS AFORESAID, IN THE CASE TO WHICH THE APPEAL RELATES IS MORE T HAN ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND RUPEES BUT NOT MORE THAN TWO HUNDRED TH OUSAND RUPEES, ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED RUPEES, (C) WHERE THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, COMPUTE D AS AFORESAID, [(D) IN THE CASE TO WHICH THE APPEAL RELATES IS MOR E THAN TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND RUPEES, ONE PER CENT OF THE ASSESSED INCOM E, SUBJECT TO A MAXIMUM OF TEN THOUSAND RUPEES, WHERE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF AN APPEAL RELATES TO ANY MATTER, OTHER THAN THOSE SPEC IFIED IN CLAUSES (A), (B) AND (C), FIVE HUNDRED RUPEES:] ITA NO.1147/ /B/15 9 PROVIDED THAT NO SUCH FEE SHALL BE PAYABLE IN THE CASE OF AN APPEAL REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (2) OR A MEMORANDUM OF C ROSS-OBJECTIONS REFERRED TO IN SUB- SECTION (4). (7) AN APPLICATION FOR STAY OF DEMAND SHALL BE ACCO MPANIED BY A FEE I OF FIVE HUNDRED RUPEES.] 6. FROM THE READING OF THE SEC. 253, IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT IF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES AS MENTIONED IN 253, THEN THE APPEAL OF THE SAID AUTHO RITY LIES WITH THE TRIBUNAL. HOWEVER APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AO OR ANY AUTHORITY EXERCISING SIMILAR POWER LIES BEFORE THE CIT(A) U/S 246A OF THE ACT. THE SECTION 246A(J)(B) PROVIDED FILING THE AP PEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE PROVISION OF SEC. 246A(J)(B) PROVIDES AS UNDER: - SECTION 271, SECTION 271A, [SECTION 271AAA,] [SECTION 271AAB,] SECTION 271F, [SECTION 271FB,] SECTION 272AA OR SECTION 272BB; 7. IN OUR VIEW, THE FILING OF AN APPEAL IS A STATUT ORY RIGHT PROVIDED BY THE STATUTE AND WHICH IS TO BE EXERCISED BY THE ASS ESSEE IN THE MANNER AS PROVIDED BY THE ACT. THE ACT PROVIDES APPEAL CAN B E FILED AGAINST THE ITA NO.1147/ /B/15 10 ORDER U/S 271FA BEFORE THE CIT(A) UNDER SECTION 26 4(J)(B) OF THE ACT AND, THEREFORE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BE FORE US IS WITHOUT ANY JURISDICTION AS IT WAS TO BE FILED BEFORE CIT(A). THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE MATTER OF ARCOT TEXTILE MILLS LTD., VS . THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER & OTHERS IN CA NO.9488/ 2013 (ARISING OUT OF S.L.P (C) NO. 13410/2012) DECIDED ON 18-10-2 013 HAD HELD IN PARAGRAPH 17 AS UNDER:- 17. MS. APARNA BHAT, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 3 WOULD CONTEND THAT THE PAYME NT OF INTEREST BY THE EMPLOYER IN CASE OF BELATED PAYMENT IS STATUTORILY LEVIABLE AND A SPECIFIED RATE HAVING BE EN PROVIDED, THE AUTHORITY HAS NO DISCRETION AND, THER EFORE, IT IS ONLY A MATTER OF COMPUTATION AND THERE CANNOT BE AN Y CHALLENGE TO IT. BE IT NOTED, IT WAS CANVASSED BY T HE SAID RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE HIGH COURT THAT AN APPEAL WO ULD LIE AGAINST AN ORDER PASSED UNDER 7Q. ON A SCRUTINY OF SECTION 7I , WE NOTICE THAT THE LANGUAGE IS CLEAR AND UNAMBIGU OUS ITA NO.1147/ /B/15 11 AND IT DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR AN APPEAL AGAINST THE DETERMINATION MADE UNDER 7Q. IT IS WELL SETTLED IN LAW THAT RIGHT OF APPEAL IS A CREATURE OF STATUTE, FOR THE RIGHT OF APPEAL INHERES IN NO ONE AND, THEREFORE, F OR MAINTAINABILITY OF AN APPEAL THERE MUST BE AUTHORITY OF LAW. THIS BEING THE POSITION A PROVISION PROVIDING FOR APPEAL SHOULD NEITHER BE CONSTRUED TO O STRICTLY NOR TOO LIBERALLY, FOR IF GIVEN EITHER OF THESE EXT REME INTERPRETATIONS, IT IS BOUND TO ADVERSELY AFFECT TH E LEGISLATIVE OBJECT AS WELL AS HAMPER THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE APPROPRIATE FORUM. NEEDLESS TO SAY, A RIGHT OF APPE AL CANNOT BE ASSUMED TO EXIST UNLESS EXPRESSLY PROVIDED FOR B Y THE STATUTE AND A REMEDY OF APPEAL MUST BE LEGITIMATELY TRACEABLE TO THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS. IF THE EXPRE SS WORDS EMPLOYED IN A PROVISION DO NOT PROVIDE AN APPEAL FR OM A PARTICULAR ORDER, THE COURT IS BOUND TO FOLLOW THE EXPRESS WORDS. TO PUT IT OTHERWISE, AN APPEAL FOR ITS MAINT AINABILITY ITA NO.1147/ /B/15 12 MUST HAVE THE CLEAR AUTHORITY OF LAW AND THAT EXPLA INS WHY THE RIGHT OF APPEAL IS DESCRIBED AS A CREATURE OF S TATUTE. (SEE: GANGA BAI V. VIJAY KUMAR AND OTHERS[3], GUJARAT AGRO INDUSTRIES CO. LTD. V. MUNCIPAL CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF AHMEDABAD AND ORS.[4], STATE OF HARYANA V. MARUTI UDYOG LTD . AND OTHERS[5], SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES LIMITED V. STATE OF U.P . AND ANOTHER[6], RAJ KUMAR SHIVHARE V. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT AND ANOTHER[7], COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA V. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED AND ANOTHER [8]) 8. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 246A(J )(B) IS CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS, THEREFORE IT IS HELD THE ASSESSEE HA S REMEDY BY WAY OF FILING AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AGAINST ,THE ORD ER IMPOSING A PENALTY U/S 271FA AND NOT BY FILLING THE APPEAL BEFORE US . THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (INTELLIGE NCE & CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION) IS EQUIVALENT TO THE CIT(A) AND, THE REFORE, THE CIT(A) CANNOT HEAR THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE EQUIVALENT OFFICER ITA NO.1147/ /B/15 13 IN OUR VIEW IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND WE ALSO DO NOT S UBSCRIBE THE VIEW OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE MATTER OF RAIBAREILLY D ISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., (SUPRA). IN OUR VIEW THE JURISDICTION OF THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT BE PROVIDED BY WAY OF CONVENIENCE OR INTERPRETATION , IT IS TO PROVIDED BY THE STATUTE AND SINCE THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR HEA RING HE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AUTHORITY U/S 271FA BY THE TRIBUNAL, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO DEAL WITH THE APPE AL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, AS THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT HAVING THE JURISDI CTION TO ENTERTAIN THE APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESS EE IS DISMISSED AS THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO JURISDICTION. 9. HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE MAY FILE THE APPROPRIATE RE MEDY BEFORE THE CIT(A) IF SO ADVISED AND WE EXPECT THE LD CIT(A) TO PASS AN APPROPRIATE ORDER WITHOUT BEING INFLUENCED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (INTELLIGENCE & CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION) AND HE WILL ALSO CONSIDER THE CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APP EAL BEFORE HIM IN VIEW OF THE PENDENCY OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.1147/ /B/15 14 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26TH APRIL, 2017 . SD/- SD/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) (L ALIET KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER BANGALORE DATED : 26/04/2017 VMS COPY TO :1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE REVENUE 3.THE CIT CONCERNED. 4.THE CIT(A) CONCERNED. 5.DR 6.GF BY ORDER ASST. REGISTR AR, ITAT, BANGALORE.