2008 (1) TMI 885

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt for the Assessment Years 2000- 2001, 2001-2002 and 2002-2003. 2. The sole question that has arisen for consideration in this appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (`the Act?) is whether the Assessing Officer had recorded a valid satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Learned counsel for the Revenue accepted the fact that this Court has taken the view in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd., [2000] 246 ITR 571 (Delhi) that the Assessing Officer must record his satisfaction in specific terms for initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. She also accepted the fact that the view taken by this Court in Ram Commercial Enterpr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion 271(1)(c) of the Act postulates penalty being imposed either for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or for concealing the income. 8. There is nothing to suggest that the Assessing Officer had applied his mind to the question about which facet of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is applicable to the case and for what act of omission or commission by the Assessee. The Assessee had filed its returns and had disclosed all material facts of the case and had concealed nothing in its returns. If the Assessing Officer takes a view contrary to that expressed by the Assessee, it does not per se mean that the Assessee has adopted an illegal device for reducing its tax liability. 9. Against the order imposing penalty, the Assessee prefer....