TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (12) TMI 201
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Act was cancelled. On 10.07.2008, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law:- "1. Whether under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in upholding/confirming the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 merely because the bonafide claim of the appellant for setting off of the unabsorbed depreciation/loss of the earlier years was rejected ex-parte by the Assessing Officer ? 2. Whether under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in holding that mere rejection of the bonafide claim of the assessee in its return of income would amount to material c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has filed an appeal before the Tribunal (ITA No. 656/LUC/2001), who vide its order dated 18.05.2005 has dismissed the appeal. In the meantime, Assessing Officer has levied the penalty of Rs.11.00 lacs against the appellant under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 30.12.2005 on the ground that the appellant has concealed its income of Rs.30,91,572/-. Feeling aggrieved from the penalty order dated 30.12.2005, the appellant has preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) who after considering the entire material and evidence on record has set aside the penalty order vide its judgment and order dated 15.02.2006. Not being satisfied from the judgment and order of the CIT(A) dated 15.02.2006, the Department has filed an appeal befo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d any satisfaction based on some material that the explanation furnished by the appellant was false or not bonafide, which is basic requirement for the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. For this purpose, learned counsel relied on the ratio laid down in the following cases :- (i) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd., 246 ITR 568 (Delhi); (ii) Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. SAS Pharmaceuticals, [2011] 335 ITR 259 (Delhi); (iii) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Vikas Promoters P. Ltd., [2005] 277 ITR 337 (Delhi); (iv) Diwan Enterprises vs. CIT, [2000] 246 ITR 571 (Delhi). Lastly, he made a request to cancel the penalty in question. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Department....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iled by the assessee in earlier years have either been treated as non-est or the losses if any have already been set off. It proves that the assessee has furnished the false information pertaining to the income and thereby is liable to levy the tax on the amount of Rs.29,91,572/-. Thus, concealment is willfully and the assessee has also furnished the inaccurate details of the income. In this regard, the Tribunal has observed that the AO while passing the order dated 12.12.2005 has given the details and has also stated categorically that he had examined and verified the issue regarding earlier years. There was no loss in the earlier year, which was supposed to be carried forward. But the assessee has failed to bring any material on record....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... clear that the assessee had no intention to declare its true income. It is the statutory duty of the assessee to record all its transactions in the books of account, to explain the source of payments made by it and to declare its true income in the return of income filed by it from year to year. The AO, in our view, has recorded a categorical finding that he was satisfied that the assessee had concealed true particulars of income and is liable for penalty proceedings under Section 271 read with Section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO has to satisfy whether the penalty proceedings be initiated or not during the course of the assessment proceedings and the AO is not required to record his satisfaction in a particular manner or red....