TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 497
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rd Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for appellant and Sri P.K. Jain, learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent assessee. 2. This appeal was admitted on sole substantial question of law, as under :- "Q.1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT is legally justified in holding that the Assessing Officer has not recorded any positive and categorical satisfaction ab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n hand. 4. We find that aforesaid decision in Karanvir Singh Gossal (supra), has no application in the case in hand. Apex Court has not at all said that necessary ingredients attracting penal provisions like Section 271(1)(c) of Act, 1961, should be or need not be mentioned in the assessment order. It only says that there is no obligation on the part of assessing authority to mention that penal p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r during the course of any proceedings under the Act, which would mean the assessment proceedings, without which, the very jurisdiction to initiate the penalty proceedings is not conferred on the assessing authority by reference to clause (c) of sub-Section (1) of section 271 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. A bare reading of the provisions of section 271 and the law laid down by the Supreme Court ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of mind. The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal had rightly deleted the penalty. No question of law arose for consideration of the court." 8. In C.I.T. Vs. Vikas Promoters P. Ltd. (2005) 277 ITR 337, the Court said as under : "It is mandatory for the Assessing Officer to record satisfaction before drawing an inference for the purpose of levying penalty while completing the assessment under....