Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) THIS batch of 3 writ petitions is being disposed of by this common order. The facts apposite for the purpose of disposal of writ petitions, illustratively, are taken from Civil Writ No. 12322 of 2011 -Sub -Registrar, Pali vs. Union of India & Ors. The petitioner, Sub -Registrar, Pali, of the Revenue Department has preferred this writ petition against IT Department being aggrieved by imposition of penalty under s. 271FA of the IT Act, 1961 vide order Annex. 7 dt. 12th March, 2008 amounting to Rs. 66,400 @ Rs. 100 per day on account of default and delay in furnishing the returns which were delayed by 660 days under s. 285BA(i) of the IT Act, 1961 for the financial year 2004 -05 giving details of the registries of conveyance deeds etc. registered by him during such period which are so required to be submitted by him to the IT Department. Before approaching this Court, the petitioner. Sub -Registrar, Pall even filed an appeal before the Tribunal against the said penalty order, which, however, came to be dismissed as not maintainable vide order dt. 18th Nov., 2008 (Annex. 8).
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent, IT Department, Mr. Surendra Mehta, submitted that in view of Co -ordinate Bench's decision of this Court in the case of Director of IT vs. Ravi Vijay : (2012) 252 CTR (Raj) 228: : (2012) 75 DTR (Raj) 202that against the penalty order under s. 271FA passed by the CIT(CIB), Rajasthan, Jaipur, an appeal would lie to the CIT(A), as the first appeal under s. 246A(1)(q) of the Act of 1961 and therefore the Tribunal had rightly dismissed the assessee's appeal as not maintainable. The relevant para 6 of the said order is quoted hereinbelow: 6. The question before this Court is whether an order passed under s. 271FA of the 1961 Act by the Director of IT, who holds the rank of a CIT in the IT Department is appealable under s. 246A(1)(q) of the 1961 Act to the CIT(A). Sec. 246A(1)(q) of the 1961 Act provides for appeals before the CIT(A) against an order of penalty passed under Chapter XXI of the 1961 Act. Sec. 271FA admittedly falls within Chapter XXI of the 1961 Act. To my mind therefore on a plain reading of the said provision, an appeal against an order passed by an officer of the rank of CIT under s. 271FA of the 1961 Act is maintainable before the CIT(A). From a mere reading of the provision for filing appeals against orders passed under ss. 271 and 272A (also under Chapter XXI) of the 1961 Act before the Tribunal, this Court cannot on analogy hold that because the said orders passed by an officer of the rank of CIT are appealable before the Tribunal under s. 253 of the 1961 Act, an order under s. 271FA of the 1961 Act also passed by an officer of the rank of CIT should also be appealable before the Tribunal. In my considered view even though orders of penalty under ss. 271 and 272A of the 1961 Act fall under Chapter XXI, appeals therefrom stand excluded before the CIT(A) under the general provisions of s. 246A(1)(q) by virtue of a specific provision under s. 253(1)(c) of the 1961 Act. Consequently, in my view an order under s. 271FA (Chapter XXI) of the 1961 Act is plainly appealable under s. 246A(1)(q) of the 1961 Act and no amount of interpretative exercise can displace law as enacted. Further it is an admitted fact that in the course of the demand notice under s. 156 of the 1961 Act following the order of penalty under s. 271FA of the 1961 Act, the assessee was informed that the said order was appealable before the jurisdictional CIT(A) -in the instant case CIT(A) -III, Jaipur. In view of admitted legal position that an alternative remedy by way of appeal is available to the petitioner, Sub -Registrar against the impugned penalty order before the first appellate authority i.e., CIT(A), this Court need not to go into the questions of merits on the imposition of penalty against the Sub -Registrar and he has the liberty to file appeal before the CIT(A), against the penalty order dt. 12th March, 2008 impugned in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the present writ petitions are disposed of with the directions to the petitioner. Sub -Registrar/s that if they intend to challenge the said impugned penalty orders before the CIT(A), they may do so by filing appeals within one month from today and if such appeals are so filed within one month from today, the objection of limitation will not come in the way and the concerned appellate authority, namely, the CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeals expeditiously on merits in accordance with law. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith. No costs.;