TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 481X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aw arises in this appeal. Dismissed. - DR. S. MURALIDHAR AND MR. SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, JJ For the Petitioner : Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Ajay Vohra with Ms. Kavita Jha And Mr. Sandeep S. Karhail, Advocates ORDER This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act ) has been filed by the Revenue against an order dated 15th February, 2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench H New Delhi ( Tribunal ) in ITA No. 1421/Del/2005 relevant for the Assessment Year 1996-97. In completing the assessment of the Assessee for the Assessment Year in question, the Assessing Officer ( AO ) by an order dated 18th December, 1998 observed at the foot of the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as fatal to the penalty order. The Tribunal followed the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Limited 246 ITR 568. The Tribunal also examined the merits of the penalty order and held that both as regards the claim for depreciation and the deduction under Section 80- M of the Act, the AO had not found fault with the particulars furnished by the Assessee nor had he shown them to be false. The AO had also not unearthed any material facts or particulars which had not been disclosed by the Assessee. The Tribunal accordingly found the penalty on both counts to be unsustainable in law. At the outset, it requires to be noted that the decision of this Court in Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. has be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re, without expressing any view on the issue pending consideration by the larger Bench, and presuming that the question referred to it is answered in the affirmative, we proceed to examine the assessment order in the instant case in order to find out whether the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer that penalty proceedings should be initiated against the Assessee under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act is discernible therefrom. Having gone through the assessment order, we find that it is not possible to discern any satisfaction of the Assessing Officer that penalty proceedings must be initiated against the Assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We may mention that we have adopted this procedure in large number of cases, some of which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
