TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 629
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d under Income Tax Act." 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee is a partnership firm, running petrol pump under the name and style of 'Dhankot Filling Station'. The return of income for AY 2017-18 was electronically filed by the assessee on 27.10.2017 declaring income of Rs. 4,40,450/- which was later revised on 13.09.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 18,85,540/-. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 15.12.2019 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 23,80,560/- after making an addition in the sum of Rs. 4,95,020/- towards unexplained cash deposits. The ld. AO in the said assessment order also stated that penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act are being initiated separately. The assessment framed by the ld. AO was accepted by the assessee and no further appeal was preferred before the ld CIT(A). The assessee also did not give any reply to the penalty notice issued u/s 270A of the Act issued on 15.12.2019. No penalty order per se was passed by the ld AO u/s 270A of the Act for the penalty initiated by the ld AO in the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 15.12.2019. Strangely....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....yond 30.06.2020. Hence, the revisionary jurisdiction initiated u/s 263 of the Act by the Ld PCIT deserves to be quashed on this count itself. In any case, we find that the law is very well settled that penalty proceedings and assessment proceedings are distinct and separate. Moreover, in our considered opinion, the Ld PCIT by invoking his revision jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act cannot direct the ld AO to initiate any penalty proceedings. This aspect is no longer res integra in view of the order of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court (Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court) in the case of CIT (Central), Ludhiana Vs. Rakesh Nain Trivedi in ITA No. 290 of 2014 dated 29.10.2015. For the sake of convenience, the entire order is reproduced herein below:- "1. This appeal has been filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") against the order dated 26.3.2014 (Annexure A-III) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in ITA No. 300(ASR)/2013 for the assessment year 2008-09, claiming the following substantial question of law:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstanc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... at any time and, therefore, the assessment framed is not effected and there is no scope to apply provisions of Section 263 of the Act. Hence the present appeal by the revenue. 3. Learned counsel for the revenue in support of its case has relied upon the judgment of Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Surendra Prasad Agrawal (2005) 275 ITR 113 (All). On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee has placed reliance upon the judgments in Commissioner of Income Tax v. J.K. D's Costa (1984) 147 ITR (St.) 1 (SC), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Subhash Kumar Jain (2011) 335 ITR 364 (P&H), Additional Commissioner of Income Tax v. J.K.D' Costs (1982) 133 ITR 7 (Delh), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Jagriti Aggarwal (2011) 339 ITR 610 (P&H) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Jagtar Singh Chawla (2013) 215 Taxman 154 (P&H). 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find the issue that arises for consideration of this Court in this appeal is could the CIT in exercise of power under Section 263 of the Act hold the order of the Assessing Officer to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is dealing with the assessment proceedings and the assessment order to expand the scope of these proceedings and to view the penalty proceedings also as part of the proceedings which are being sought to be revised by the Commissioner. There is no identity between the assessment proceedings and the penalty proceedings; the latter are separate proceedings, that may, in some cases, follow as a consequence of the assessment proceedings. As the Tribunal has pointed out, though it is usual for the ITO to record in the assessment order that penalty proceedings are being initiated, this is more a matter of convenience than of legal requirement. All that the law requires, so far as the penalty proceedings are concerned, is that they should be initiated in the court of the proceedings for assessment. It is sufficient if there is some record somewhere, even apart from the assessment order itself, that the ITO has recorded his satisfaction that the assessed is guilty of concealment or other default for which penalty action is called for. Indeed, in certain cases it is possible for the ITO to issue a penalty notice or initiate penalty proceedings even long before the assessment is completed tho....