Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.09 seconds)

Diwan Enterprises vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 5 November, 1998

"3. After considering the rival submissions of both the parties and perusing the other material on record, I find that not (sic) these assesseds deserve to succeed in their respective appeals. I noted that disallowing the claim of loss by passing order under Section 143(3), the AO has not recorded any satisfaction as contemplated under Section 271(1)(c) for the purpose of levying penalty.. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Diwan Enterprises v. CIT (2000) 246 ITR 571 (Del) and in case of CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (2000) 246 ITR 568 (Del) has held that it is mandatory to record satisfaction before drawing an inference for the purpose of levying penalty while completing the assessments under Section 143(3). I have seen the orders of the AO passed under Section 143(3) and found that no such satisfaction as contemplated under Section 271(1)(c) has been recorded by the AO as the AO has mentioned simply that 'penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) are initiated separately'. Therefore, in view of the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court (supra), both the assesseds deserve to succeed on the legal ground alone.

The Commssioner Of Income Tax, Madras ... vs S.V. Angidi Chettiar on 9 January, 1962

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while relying upon CIT and Anr. v. S.V. Angidi Chettiar (1962) 44 ITR 739 (SC) contended that it was not necessary for the authorities to record reasons of satisfaction before issuing the demand notice as the proceedings taken by the AO per se reflected the ingredients of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act that there was concealment of income and as such assessed was liable for penal action within the provisions of the said Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 173 - J C Shah - Full Document
1