https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374238 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was held unsustainable because the Principal Commissioner's revisional order did not record clear satisfaction that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Section 271(1B) was held to cure only cases where penalty is initiated by an Assessing Officer, and not where initiation is by a Principal Commissioner, who is outside the definition of Assessing Officer under section 2(7A). In the absence of the requisite recorded satisfaction, the initiation of penalty suffered from a jurisdictional defect and was quashed in favour of the assessee, with the same reasoning applied to the connected assessment years. en-us Tue, 15 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Jan 2019 07:30:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374238 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was held unsustainable because the Principal Commissioner's revisional order did not record clear satisfaction that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Section 271(1B) was held to cure only cases where penalty is initiated by an Assessing Officer, and not where initiation is by a Principal Commissioner, who is outside the definition of Assessing Officer under section 2(7A). In the absence of the requisite recorded satisfaction, the initiation of penalty suffered from a jurisdictional defect and was quashed in favour of the assessee, with the same reasoning applied to the connected assessment years. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 15 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374238