9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 458X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessment year 1999- 2000, claiming the following substantial question of law:- "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) holding that no satisfaction was recorded by the Assessing Officer, whereas a perusal of the assessment order dated 14.3.2002 would objectively satisfy any person examining the same, that the AO had applied his mind to the facts of the case and had only thereafter simultaneously issued the show cause notice under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act?" 3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal as narrated therein are that the assessee derives income from trading of metal scrap and wastes. A survey under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , no one has appeared on behalf of the assessee to contest the appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the revenue-appellant submitted that sub-section 1B to Section 271 which was inserted by Finance Act, 2008 retrosepctively w.e.f. 1.4.1989 whereby an order containing direction for initiation of penalty proceedings under Clause (c) of sub-section (1) was to constitute satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for initiation of penalty proceedings therein. Thus, it was submitted that the order of the Tribunal holding that there was no satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer while initiating penalty proceedings for concealment of income was vitiated. Reliance was also placed upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not recorded during assessment is not a matter of form but of substance and the issue has to be gone into from case to case. Absence of satisfaction could not be inferred from the fact that only words used in the assessment order are that proceedings were being separately initiated. In fact, this coupled with the findings of assessment showed that satisfaction existed in the course of assessment itself. Accordingly, we hold that the view taken by the Tribunal that mere making of mention that penalty proceedings were being separately initiated in the order of assessment did not justify initiation of penalty proceedings, cannot be upheld and is set aside. The Tribunal has not discussed the issue whether case for imposition of penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
