Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.40 seconds)Section 271 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Interest-Tax Act, 1974
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M/S. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. on 8 October, 1998
13. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and have
perused the record of the case. As far as legal position is concerned, the
same has succinctly been explained by Ld. AR and there cannot be any
quarrel with the proposition that the Assessing Officer is required to record
his satisfaction in course of assessment proceedings as warranted u/s 13 of
the Interest Tax Act, regarding concealment of income or for furnishing of
inaccurate particulars of income. Further no provision analogous to section
271(1)(B) has been inserted in the Interest Tax Act, which could warrant
levy of penalty merely on the ground of additions being made without
recording satisfaction regarding concealment of income or furnishing of
inaccurate particulars of income. In the backdrop of this legal position when
we examine the facts of the present case, we find that Assessing Officer has
not recorded satisfaction in course of assessment proceedings and simply
initiated penalty. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram
Commercial Enterprises Ltd. 246 ITR 568 (Supra) has observed that merely
because penalty proceedings had been initiated it cannot be concluded that
13 ITA No.1, C.O. No.394 & 395/Del/2012
satisfaction as warranted u/s 13 was arrived at. In the case of Diwan
Enterprises (Supra), Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that unless requisite
satisfaction was recorded in the proceedings under the Act, the jurisdiction
to initiate the penalty proceedings could not have been exercised. Thus, the
entire penalty proceedings were without jurisdiction.
Section 13 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 21 in The Interest-Tax Act, 1974 [Entire Act]
The Finance Act, 2018
The Commssioner Of Income Tax, Madras ... vs S.V. Angidi Chettiar on 9 January, 1962
13. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and have
perused the record of the case. As far as legal position is concerned, the
same has succinctly been explained by Ld. AR and there cannot be any
quarrel with the proposition that the Assessing Officer is required to record
his satisfaction in course of assessment proceedings as warranted u/s 13 of
the Interest Tax Act, regarding concealment of income or for furnishing of
inaccurate particulars of income. Further no provision analogous to section
271(1)(B) has been inserted in the Interest Tax Act, which could warrant
levy of penalty merely on the ground of additions being made without
recording satisfaction regarding concealment of income or furnishing of
inaccurate particulars of income. In the backdrop of this legal position when
we examine the facts of the present case, we find that Assessing Officer has
not recorded satisfaction in course of assessment proceedings and simply
initiated penalty. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram
Commercial Enterprises Ltd. 246 ITR 568 (Supra) has observed that merely
because penalty proceedings had been initiated it cannot be concluded that
13 ITA No.1, C.O. No.394 & 395/Del/2012
satisfaction as warranted u/s 13 was arrived at. In the case of Diwan
Enterprises (Supra), Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that unless requisite
satisfaction was recorded in the proceedings under the Act, the jurisdiction
to initiate the penalty proceedings could not have been exercised. Thus, the
entire penalty proceedings were without jurisdiction.
Section 194A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
D. M. Manasvi vs C.I.T., Gujarat Ii, Ahmedabad on 19 September, 1972
" In spite of the abovesaid plea of the petitioner having
been rejected. The penalty imposed u/s 271 (1) (c) has still to be
set aside though for a different reason and because the very
foundation for initiation of the penalty proceedings in
10 ITA No.1, C.O. No.394 & 395/Del/2012
conspicuous by its absence. The opening clause of sub-
section(1) of section 271 itself contemplates a finding as
regards satisfaction of availability of grounds under clause (c)
being recorded during the assessment proceedings. Recently, in
CIT vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (I.T. C No. 13 of
1996 decided on October 8, 1998 - Since reported in (2000)
246 ITR 568 (Delhi), following the law laid down by their
lordships of the Supreme Court in D. Manasvi V. CIT (1972)
86 ITR 557 and CIT V. S. V. Angidi Chettiar (1962) 44 ITR
739 (SC), we have held that unless requisite satisfaction was
recorded in the proceedings under the Act, which would mean
the assessment proceedings, the jurisdiction to initiate the
penalty proceedings could not have been exercise. Satisfaction
has to be before the issue of notice or initiation of any step for
imposing penalty. In the case at hand we find the Assessing
Officer having nowhere recorded till the conclusion of the
assessment proceedings his satisfaction that the assessee had
concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate
particulars of such income. This is a jurisdictional defect which
can not be cured. The initiation of the penalty pro9ceedings was
itself bad and, consequently, all the subsequent proceedings
leading up to the passing of the penalty order must fail. C.W.P.
No. 3869 of 1997 is, therefore, liable to be allowed."