TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 94X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing Officer that a case for initiation of penalty proceedings was made as there was concealment of income, or that incorrect particulars had been furnished by the assessee, with intention to avoid payment of tax. In the present case the Assessing Officer had recorded satisfaction with regard to one sum while with regard to the other he made no such indication, as is clear from the above reproduced relevant portion of the order of the Assessing Officer. We find no merit in this appeal as it raises no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, as such an interpretation is clear from the bare reading of the provisions and it has already been the subject-matter of pronouncements by various courts. The view consistently is in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s under section 271(1)(c) are accordingly initiated. Further it may be mentioned that the assessee has given the closing stock figures on estimate in the trading account filed. The assessee no doubt has tendered closing stock inventory but this inventory cannot be said to be complete as the assessee has not taken into account the incentive received on purchase and other incidental expenses incurred for the procurement of purchases. All the credit notes are debited at the end of the year and a number of items on which discount has been received cannot be co-related and accordingly the valuation as shown is beyond verification, this would further substantiate the Department's action to estimate the g.p. 2. In regard to commission paid to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome-tax Appellate Tribunal dated November 12, 1999, he held that no penalty could be levied on the basis of an assessment which had been set aside and as such recorded the finding that sum of Rs. 3,20,868/- relating to suppression of sale was not or could not be taken on record for the purposes of levying penalty. In regard to the other entry of Rs. 40,630/-, he held that the Assessing Officer was justified in initiating the proceedings for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. This order of the first appellate authority dated April 4, 2002, was challenged before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal which vide its order dated April 6, 2004, allowed the appeal of the assessee by giving to the assessee further relief in regard to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in view of the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. [2000] 246 ITR 568, we hold that without recording satisfaction as contemplated under section 271(1)(c), penalty levied and confirmed by the lower authorities was not justified. Therefore, the same is cancelled. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 4. The Tribunal while granting this relief to the appellant had relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. S. V. Angidi Chettiar [1962] 44 ITR 739. It is a settled principle of law and the provisions of section 271(1)(c) on their plain reading would require proper application of mind and recording of at least bare minimum opinion on the part of the Ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
