Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 42 (6.50 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Super Metal Re-Rollers (P) Ltd. on 29 September, 2003

Lotus Learning (P.) Ltd. vs Dy Cit on 25 July, 2005

In the assessment order, the assessing officer has only to comply with the requirement was laid down by the decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Diwan Enterprises v. CIT (2000) 246 ITR 571 (Del), CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (2000) 246 ITR 568 (Del) and CIT v. Super Metal Re-rollers (P) Ltd. (2004) 265 ITR 82 (Del). The requirement is that he must record a satisfaction about concealment of income for initiating penalty. This satisfaction is only prima facie. There is no requirement that concealment has to be proved in the assessment order. What is to be seen is whether the assessing officer has applied his mind before initiating penalty or that he has routinely initiated the penalty after making several additions in the assessment order and not satisfying as to in respect of which addition, there is an element of concealment of particulars of income or of filing of inaccurate particulars. Where there are certain disallowances for want of evidence or there are certain claims, the assessee was not able to establish and there may be other additions, where there may not be any charge of filing inaccurate particulars of income or concealing particulars of income, it becomes very difficult to know as to, in respect of which item the assessing officer has applied his mind before initiating penalty. In the present case, things are entirely different. After every addition, the assessing officer has mentioned that penalty is initiated on this account. In other words, while making addition either on account of double claim of FPS account or unexplained payment to distributors or unexplained claim in foreign travel expenses, the assessing officer was specific after each addition and he initiated penalty proceedings thereafter. It was not a case where assessing officer had without application of mind initiated penalty at the end of the assessment order. Therefore, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee that there was no satisfaction of the assessing officer before initiating penalty proceedings. We inter from the conduct of the assessing officer apparent from the manner in which the assessment order has been drafted wherein the facturn of initiation of penalty proceedings has been mentioned after every addition that lie has applied his mind and he was satisfied about concealment of income and only thereafter penalty proceedings were initiated. There is another point to be noted is that he has not left it to the office staff to initiated penalty proceedings by simply mentioning "to initiate penalty proceedings". He has mentioned penalty proceedings "initiated" after each amount of addition. We are satisfied that assessing officer has followed the basic requirement of application of mind before initiating penalty proceedings. Accordingly, this ground of assessee is rejected.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ishwar Enterprises vs Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax on 29 October, 2004

The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has observed that whenever AO has to record his satisfaction under the IT Act, it is specifically mentioned, for example, Section 148(2) of the IT Act and Section 273 do not have a similar provision requiring recording the reason for satisfaction and, therefore, it is to be inferred that Parliament never intended that before initiating penalty proceedings and issuing notice under Section 273, the AO must record his reasons in writing for doing so. It may be observed that the view taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ram Commercial Enterprises (supra), which has again been affirmed in the subsequent decision in the case of Super Metal Re-Rollers (supra), has got binding authority, being the decision of Jurisdictional High Court. Therefore, we have to respectfully follow the same. The assessee had also placed reliance upon the aforesaid decisions before the learned CIT(A) but the learned CIT(A) has not considered the same although the decisions have been cited on p. 3 of his order.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Income Tax Officer vs Rakesh Gupta on 18 January, 2007

6. I have heard both the parties and carefully considered the rival submissions with reference to facts, evidence and material on record. I have also gone through the order of the CIT(A). Section 271(1)(c) of the Act provides for initiation of penalty proceedings. Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 271 provides that if the AO or the CIT(A) or the CIT in the course of any proceedings under this Act is satisfied that any person has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty as specified in Clause (iii) of Section 271(1) of the Act. Thus, recording of satisfaction in the assessment order is mandatory requirement of law for initiation of penalty proceedings. If the satisfaction is not recorded by the AO in the assessment order it would mean that the proceedings initiated under this section are not valid and without jurisdiction. The recording of satisfaction means that the assessment order must apparently show that there was an application of mind by the AO. The application of mind can only be gathered by the reasons stated in the assessment order. This view finds support from the judgments of Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Bhagwant Finance Co. Ltd. v. CIT (supra), CIT v. Auto Lamps Ltd. (Del), CIT v. Vikas Promoters (P) Ltd. (supra), CIT v. Super Metal Re-rollers (supra), Diwan Enterprises v. CIT (supra), CIT v. B.R. Sharma and CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (supra).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 22 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Hindustan Coca Cola Marketing Company ... vs Dcit, Circle-11(2), New Delhi on 27 February, 2019

vs. CIT [1972] 86 ITR Page 10 of 14 ITA No.- 7900/Del/2018 and SA No.- 62/Del/2019 (Arising out of ITA No.- 7900/Del/2018) In the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Marketing Company Pvt. Ltd. 557 (SC) the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that a bare reading of the provisions of section 271 and the law laid down by the Supreme Court makes it clear that, it is the assessing authority who has to form his own opinion and record his satisfaction before initiating the penalty proceedings; and further that merely because the penalty proceedings have been initiated it cannot be assumed that such a satisfaction was arrived at. In the case of CIT vs. Super Metal Re-rollers (supra), Hon'ble Delhi High Court once again took the view that it is the assessing authority which has to form its own opinion and record its satisfaction before initiating the penalty proceedings; and further that merely because the penalty proceedings have been initiated, it cannot be assumed that such a satisfaction was arrived at, in the absence of the same being spelt out by the order of the assessing authority. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court, dismissing Revenue's appeal, held in this case that it was not sufficient that the satisfaction of the AO as contemplated in section 271(1)(c) of the Act was inherent in the queries raised by him during the course of the assessment proceedings and that the AO had directed the issue of notice for levy of penalty under the section after being satisfied that the assessee had concealed the particulars of its income.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next