2008 (1) TMI 24

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 3. In Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd., [2000] 246 ITR 571 (Delhi) it has been held that the Assessing Officer must record his satisfaction in specific terms for initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. This decision has been upheld 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 larger Bench in Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi v. Indus Valley Promoters Limited, (2006) 155 Taxman 223 on the ground that one aspect of the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s of the case and had concealed nothing in its returns. If the Assessing Officer took a view contrary to that expressed by the Assessee, it does not per se mean that the Assessee should be penalized. 9. Against the order imposing penalty, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ["CIT(A)"] and in his order dated 20th January, 2006, the CIT(A) was of the view that the Assessing Officer had not properly recorded his satisfaction before initiation of penalty proceedings. This view was upheld by the Tribunal. 10. We are unable to discern from a reading of the assessment order why the Assessing Officer chose to initiate penalty proceedings against the Assessee and under which part of Section 271(1)(c....