2025 (7) TMI 1506

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....A),Delhi-23/10309-2017-18 dated 29.11.2023 against the order of assessment passed u/s 271DA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') dated 30.03.2022 by the Assessing Officer, Addl. CIT, Central Range-1, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'ld. AO'). Identical issue is involved in both these appeals and hence they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. The only identical issue involved in both these appeals is as to whether the learned CITA was justified in confirming the levy of penalty under section 271 DA of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the Act on 8-4-2021 for assessment year 2018-19 and that framed for the assessment year 2019-20 on 11-4-2021, we find that there is absolutely no mention of recording satisfaction by the assessing officer that assessee had violated the provisions of section 269 ST of the Act. Now, the short question that arises for our consideration is as to whether such non-recording of satisfaction in the quantum assessment order would be fatal to the levy of penalty under section 271 DA of the Act. 4. In this regard, the learned DR vehemently submitted that there is no requirement of recording the satisfaction in the quantum assessment order as the section does not prescribe requirement of recording such satisfaction. The learned DR submitted that ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ted that unlike penalty provisions under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, where the statute expressly requires the assessing officer to record satisfaction regarding concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, section 271DA of the Act does not mandate any such satisfaction being recorded as a condition precedent to the levy of penalty. Further, the learned DR argued that it is the joint commissioner who is levying the penalty who has to be satisfied that no good and sufficient reason has been provided by the assessee for non-levy of penalty under section 271DA of the Act and hence obviously, the assessing officer could not record any such satisfaction in the quantum assessment proceedings who is subordinate to the ....