TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 62
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....U D G M E N T VINEET KOTHARI J., 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent-Assessee. 2. The present appeal is filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent- Assessee Mr. G.B. Yadav, has raised preliminary objection that since the tax effect involved in the present case is below Rs. 20,00,00....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ority namely, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) vide order dated 01.04.2014 to Rs. 7,59,443/-. 6. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on the second appeal filed by the Assessee set aside the s aid penalty completely following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills, [2015] 379 ITR 521 (SC), in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: - "In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Assessing Officer also observed that the assessee had contravened the provisions of section 269SS of the Act and because of this the Assessing Officer was satisfied that penalty proceedings under section 271E of the Act were to be initiated. The assessee carried out this order in appeal. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the appeal and set aside the assessment order with a direct....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e original assessment order and when that assessment order had been set aside, could still survive. The Tribunal as well as the High Court has held that it could not be so for the simple reason that when the original assessment order itself was set aside, the satisfaction recorded therein for the purpose of initiation of the penalty proceeding under section 271E would also not survive. This, acco....