TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (6) TMI 233
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) Whether this judgment of the jurisdictional High Court is per incuriam." 2. Since legal issues are involved in these appeals, it is not necessary for us to set out the facts in detail. It is suffice to say that in all these cases the assessments were completed under section 143(3) and at the end of the assessment order it was mentioned to the effect that penalty proceedings are/are being initiated separately. Apart from these observations the Assessing Officer had not whispered anything about the satisfaction in terms of section 271(1)(c). On these facts the question for consideration is whether the penalty proceedings were initiated in accordance with law. 3. This aspect of the issue was the subject-matter of consideration before t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hi) and in the recent case as CIT v. Vikas Promotors (P.) Ltd. [2005] 145 Taxman 300 (Delhi). In view of these decisions it has to be held that in all the cases before us, penalties were not validly initiated inasmuch as no satisfaction in terms of section 271(1)(c) was recorded by the Assessing Officer. 5. In view of the above, we would have allowed the appeals of the assessees before us, but the ld. DR strongly submitted before us that the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. is per incuriam inasmuch as Their Lordships relied upon and referred to in their judgment only part of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.V. Angidi Chettiar appearing at page ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dictional High Court in the above case and, therefore, failed to consider the same. According to him, had the Hon'ble Delhi High Court considered the entire observations of the Apex Court, the decision would have been entirely different. He proceeded to argue that in the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there was an endorsement at the foot of the assessment order by the Income-tax Officer that action under section 28 had been taken for concealment of income which clearly indicated that the Income-tax Officer was satisfied in the course of the assessment proceedings that the assessee had concealed its income. He further submitted that in all the present cases similar endorsement is there and, therefore, such endorsement amounts to sati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ision of its own or when a High Court has acted in ignorance of a decision of the Supreme Court." 8. As noticed by us above, a judgment can be said to be per incuriam only if it is rendered in ignorance of the provisions of a statute or a rule having statutory force or a binding authority. But, if the relevant provisions of the Act and the binding judgments have been considered by the Court in its judgment, then it cannot be said that the judgment was delivered in ignorance of the relevant provisions of the Act or the binding precedent. In the present cases, it is not the case of the Revenue that relevant provisions of the Act were not considered. It is also not the case of the Revenue that the jurisdictional High Court rendered the judg....