2020 (12) TMI 82

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Ld. DR and duly considered the facts available on record in light of the applicable position. 3. When these appeals were called off for hearing it was noted that the issue in these appeals are squarely covered by the decision of coordinate bench order dated 10th August 2007, in ITA No. 2900 & 2901/Del/2016 for the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96. Wherein the coordinate bench has inter alia observed as follows:- 2. In this case, the assessee had not complied with the notices issued by the AO in the course of assessment proceedings under s. 142(1) on 13th Nov., 2000, 17th Nov., 2000 and 7th Feb., 2001. It was held by him that there was a clear default, which was also deliberate. Therefore, penalty of Rs. 30,000 was levied @....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ction, he relied on the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Hissaria Bros. [2007] 211 CTR (Raj) 156 : [2007] 291 ITR 244 (Raj), dealing with the levy of penalty under s. 271D of the Act. The Hon'ble Court pointed out that where the penalty is not linked with the assessment proceedings, the provisions of s. 275(1)(c) will be applicable. The operative portion of the order at pp. 257 and 258 is reproduced below: "We are, therefore, of the opinion that since penalty proceedings for default in not having transactions through the bank as required under ss. 269SS and 269T are not related to the assessment proceeding but are independent of it, therefore, the completion of appellate proceedings' arisin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nguish between penalties linked with assessment and penalties not linked with assessment. The distinction arises only in respect of the fact whether the assessment order was subject-matter of appeal or not. It was also pointed out that since the AO had issued the notice of penalty, his satisfaction stood impliedly recorded for the reason that without such satisfaction the notice would not have been issued. 2.3 We have considered the facts of the case and rival submissions. We find that the Hon'ble Gujarat (sic-Rajasthan) High Court has clearly distinguished between cls. (a ) and (c) of sub-s. (1) of s. 275. Under cl. (a), the levy of penalty is dependent upon the findings of the appellate authorities, which is not the case unde....