The Delhi High Court in the case Prateek Chitkara Versus JCIT observed and has quashed the penalty order under the Black Money, the Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets and the Imposition of Tax Act, 2015, BMA for the non-consideration of the email of assessee.
The bench comprising of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju in the case observed and has stated that reply filed by the petitioner or assessee, thus, the assertion of him was that the penalty proceedings should be kept in abeyance, with regards to the fact that the appeal preferred by him on the quantum levy was pending before the CIT (A).
In the present case, the petitioner or assessee has challenged the penalty order dated 29.03.2023 which is being passed by the department as stated under Section 41 of the Black Money, the Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets and for the Imposition of Tax Act, 2015. Therefore, the petitioner or assessee has preferred an appeal against the quantum levy, which is pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax i.e., the Appeals.
It has also been shown in the record which being prior to the penalty order which is passed, the court issued a show cause notice dated 02.03.2023 which was being issued under section 41 of the B.M. Act. Therefore, the reply was filed by the assessee on 09.03.2023 via email.
It has also been contended by the assessee before the court that as per Section 46(4)(b) of the B.M. Act requires that the penalty order should have been passed by the officer who is in the rank of Assistant Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, Assistant Director, or Deputy Director, albeit which being along with the approval of the Joint Commissioner or with the Joint Director. Accordingly, the court in the case directed the department to conduct a de novo exercise. The counsel, Ruchesh Sinha appeared for the petitioner. The counsel, Ruchir Bhatia represented the respondent.
