2015 (12) TMI 979

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....A No. 300(ASR)/2013 for the assessment year 2008-09, claiming the following substantial question of law:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in law in cancelling the order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by holding that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, on the issue of penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Explanation 5A which had not been initiated by the Assessing Officer during the course of the assessment proceedings on the ground that due date for filing return includes return filed u/s 139(4) of I.T. Act? 2. Briefly stated, the facts necessary for adjudication o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d Rs. 40 lacs in the earlier year. Further, the Tribunal observed that the CIT cannot direct the Assessing Officer to initiate penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and that the penalty proceedings under Sections 271A and 271B of the Act are not related to the assessment and can be initiated at any time and, therefore, the assessment framed is not effected and there is no scope to apply provisions of Section 263 of the Act. Hence the present appeal by the revenue. 3. Learned counsel for the revenue in support of its case has relied upon the judgment of Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Surendra Prasad Agrawal (2005) 275 ITR 113 (All). On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee has placed reli....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uhati in Surendra Prasad Singh and others v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1988) 173 ITR 510 (Gau.) whereas dissenting with the diametrically opposite approach of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Additional Commissioner of Income Tax v. Indian Pharmaceuticals (1980) 123 ITR 874 (MP), Additional Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kantilal Jain (1980) 125 ITR 373 (MP) and Addl. CWT v. Nathoolal Balaram (1980) 125 ITR 596 (MP) had concluded that where the CIT finds that the Assessing Officer had not initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the assessment order, he cannot direct the Assessing Officer to initiate penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in exercise of revisional power under Section 263 of the Act. T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... this is more a matter of convenience than of legal requirement. All that the law requires, so far as the penalty proceedings are concerned, is that they should be initiated in the court of the proceedings for assessment. It is sufficient if there is some record somewhere, even apart from the assessment order itself, that the ITO has recorded his satisfaction that the assessed is guilty of concealment or other default for which penalty action is called for. Indeed, in certain cases it is possible for the ITO to issue a penalty notice or initiate penalty proceedings even long before the assessment is completed though the actual penalty order cannot be passed until the assessment finalised. We, therefore, agree with the view taken by the Trib....