Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (4) TMI 523 - AT - Income TaxSatisfaction for initiating proceeding under Section 158BD - Held that:- Penalty proceeding is different than the assessment proceeding. The authorities under Income-tax Act are expected to re-appreciate the material available on record and find out whether penalty can be imposed for concealment of income. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that when the satisfaction was not recorded by the Assessing Officer for initiating proceeding under Section 158BD of the Act, it cannot be said that there is any concealment of income by the assessee. In those circumstances, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that initiating proceeding under Section 158BFA(2) may not be justified. Even otherwise, there are two views possible in this case. One view is that the partner and partnership-firm are one and the same person, therefore, recording of satisfaction may not be necessary. This view is somewhat similar to that of same officer assessing the income of searched person and the person other than the searched person. The CBDT clarified that even though the Assessing Officer is one and the same for the searched person and the person other than searched person, satisfaction need to be recorded. Similarly, even though the partner and partnership-firm are one and same under common law, they are being assessed separately under Income-tax Act, therefore, recording of satisfaction is mandatory as held by the Apex Court in Manish Maheshwari (2007 (2) TMI 148 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ). The CBDT, in fact, instructed to withdraw all the appeals where no satisfaction was recorded. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case for levy of penalty under Section 158BFA(2) of the Act - Decided in favour of assessee.
|