TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (1) TMI 15
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rned 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 Enterprises Ltd. has been approved by the Supreme Court in Dalip N. Shroff v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC) and T. Ashok Pai v. Commissioner of Income Tax, [2007] 292 ITR 11 (SC). 4. Nevertheless, it was contended that the matter should be referred to a larger Bench because the following issue has been referred to a large....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere 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. Merely to say that the Assessee had adopted an illegal device to avoid his tax liability is neither here nor there. 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. 10. Against the order imposing penalty, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissione....