TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 979X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der, he cannot direct the Assessing Officer to initiate penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in exercise of revisional power under Section 263 of the Act. See Commissioner of Income Tax v. Subhash Kumar Jain (2010 (9) TMI 772 - Punjab and Haryana High Court) - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 290 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 29-10-2015 - MR. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MR. SHEKHER DHAWAN, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate For The Respondent : Mr. Ravish Sood, Advocate AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 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 Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Section 263 of the Act set aside the assessment order holding that the same was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The assessment order was cancelled by the CIT on the ground that i) the commission of ₹ 47,925/- had been paid without deduction of TDS and was not allowable; ii) Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act had not been initiated; and iii) Penalty under Section 271A and 271B of the Act had not been initiated. Accordingly, the CIT directed the Assessing Officer to re-frame the order in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 26.3.2014 (Annexure A-III) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee hold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act hold the order of the Assessing Officer to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue where the Assessing Officer had failed to initiate penalty proceedings while completing assessment under Section 153A of the Act. 6. It may be noticed that the said issue is no longer res integra. This Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Subhash Kumar Jain (2011) 335 ITR 364 agreeing with the view of High Courts of Delhi in Additional CIT v. J.K.D.'Costa (1982) 133 ITR 7 (Del), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sudershan Talkies (1993) 201 ITR 289 (Del) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nihal Chand Rekyan (2000) 242 ITR 45 (Del), Rajasthan in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Keshrimal Parasmal (1986) 157 ITR 484 (Raj), Calcutta in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ression assessment is used in the Act with different meanings in different contexts, so far as s. 263 is concerned, it refers to a particular proceeding that is being considered by the Commissioner and it is not possible when the Commissioner 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 r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... han Talkies (1993) 112 CTR (Del) 165 : (1993) 201 ITR 289 (Del) and followed in CIT vs. Nihal Chand Rekyan (1999) 156 CTR (Del) 59 : (2000) 242 ITR 45 (Del). The Rajasthan High Court in CIT vs. Keshrimal Parasmal (1985) 48 CTR (Raj) 61 : (1986) 157 ITR 1984 (Raj), Gauhati High Court in Surendra Prasad Singh Ors. vs. CIT (1988) 71 CTR (Gau) 125 : (1988) 173 ITR 510 (Gau) and Calcutta High Court in CIT vs. Linotype Machinery Ltd. (1991) 192 ITR 337 (Cal) have followed the judgment of Delhi High Court in J.K.D's Costa's case (supra). 11. However, Madhya Pradesh High Court in Addl. CIT vs. Indian Pharmaceuticals (1980) 123 ITR 874 (MP) which has been followed by the same High Court in Addl. CIT vs. Kantilal Jain (1980) 125 ITR 37 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
