TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Validity of Assessment Order Key in Penalty Proceedings under Income Tax Act</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula Versus M/s Jai Laxmi Rice Mills</h3> Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula Versus M/s Jai Laxmi Rice Mills - [2015] 379 ITR 521 (SC) Issues:1. Whether penalty proceedings under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act are independent of the assessment proceeding for Assessment Years 1991-1992 and 1992-1993.Analysis:The Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether penalty proceedings under Section 271D of the Income Tax Act are separate from the assessment proceedings for specific Assessment Years. The case involved an assessment order passed based on information regarding large-scale purchase and sale of wheat by the assessee without filing income tax returns. The Assessing Officer observed a contravention of Section 269SS, leading to the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271E. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) set aside the original assessment order, directing a fresh assessment. However, the fresh assessment order did not record satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271E. Subsequently, a penalty order was passed based on the original assessment order before it was set aside. The main question was whether the penalty order could still stand after the original assessment order was nullified.The Tribunal and the High Court held that the penalty order could not be upheld once the original assessment order was set aside. They reasoned that the satisfaction recorded in the original assessment order for initiating penalty proceedings would no longer be valid. The Supreme Court concurred with this reasoning, affirming that when the original assessment order is nullified, any penalty based on it cannot survive. The Court emphasized that for a penalty under Section 271E to be valid, there must be a proper satisfaction recorded, which was lacking in the case of the fresh assessment order. As no satisfaction was recorded for the penalty under Section 271E, the Court concluded that such penalty could not be imposed. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed based on these findings.
TaxTMI 