2007 (12) TMI 481

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....essee for the Assessment Year in question, the Assessing Officer ( AO ) by an order dated 18th December, 1998 observed at the foot of the order as under: Assessed at income of Rs. 2,23,16,920/-. Issue necessary forms. Penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) are separately initiated. The AO, while passing the assessment order, disallowed the claim on account of depreciation and the deduction under Section 80-M of the Act. Thereafter by a separate order dated 20th September, 2004 under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the AO levied a penalty of Rs. 45,41,242/- after concluding that the Assessee had concealed or furnished an inaccurate particulars of income to the extent of Rs. 1,69,55,590/-. The appeal filed by the Assessee before the Commission of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n law. At the outset, it requires to be noted that the decision of this Court in Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. has been approved by the Supreme Court in Dilip N. Shroff vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC) and T.Ashok Pai Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, [2007] 292 ITR 11 (SC). Learned counsel for the Revenue states that another Bench of this Court has in Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi IV v. Indus Valley Promoters Limited (2006) 155 Taxman 223 referred the following substantial question of law to a larger Bench which according to the referring Bench was not considered in Ram Commercial Enterprises Limited: Whether satisfaction of the officer initiating the proceedings under section 271 of the Income-tax Act ....