2008 (1) TMI 25

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 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 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 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he 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 preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ["CIT(A)"] and in his order dated 22^nd August, 2005, 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 T....