Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be sustained when the assessment order did not expressly record initiation of such proceedings.
Analysis: Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is attracted where the statutory preconditions of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars are satisfied. The Court noted that section 271(1B) deems the Assessing Officer's satisfaction to exist where the assessment order contains a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings, and that the satisfaction must arise during assessment proceedings. Relying on the earlier binding view that absence of any indication in the assessment order regarding initiation of penalty proceedings renders the initiation untenable, the Court held that the Revenue could not sustain the penalty merely by reference to the assessee's acceptance of additions or payment of tax. The later Supreme Court decision cited by the Revenue did not alter this position because it did not deal with a case where the assessment order was silent on initiation of penalty proceedings.
Conclusion: The initiation of penalty proceedings was invalid for want of the requisite endorsement or recorded satisfaction in the assessment order, and the penalty could not be sustained.