TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 643X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Assessing Officer had not recorded any satisfaction in the assessment order regarding the concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars by the assessee. 3. Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, learned senior standing counsel for the revenue submits that in CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. [2000] 246 ITR 568 (Delhi) this Court has taken the view that if the Assessing Officer does not record his satisfaction in the assessment order that penalty proceedings should be initiated against the assessee the subsequent order levying penalty would be bad in law. However, she says that another Bench of this Court has in CIT v. Indus Valley Promoters Ltd. [2006] 155 Taxman 223 referred the following substantial question of law to a larg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 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. 7. On a perusal of the assessment order, we find that the Assessing Officer has, in regard to initiation of penalty proceedings, observed as follows : Assessed at the total income of ₹ 98,97,220 (rounded off). Issue necessary forms. Give credit to pre-paid taxes. Charge interest under section 234A/B/C/D of the Income-tax Act as per law. Loss from speculation business for ₹ 25,95,113 to carried forwarded to next year. Initiate penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 8. The above record ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the revenue submits that in CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. [2000] 246 ITR 568 (Delhi) this Court has taken the view that if the Assessing Officer does not record his satisfaction in the assessment order that penalty proceedings should be initiated against the assessee the subsequent order levying penalty would be bad in law. However, she says that another Bench of this Court has in CIT v. Indus Valley Promoters Ltd. [2006] 155 Taxman 223 referred the following substantial question of law to a larger Bench which according to the referring Bench was not considered in Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. s case (supra). Whether satisfaction of the Officer initiating the proceedings under section 271 of the Income-tax Act can be said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act is discernible therefrom. 7. On a perusal of the assessment order, we find that the Assessing Officer has, in regard to initiation of penalty proceedings, observed as follows : Assessed. Issue necessary forms. Charge interest under section 234B. Allow credit for pre-paid taxes as per copy of challan on file. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act has been initiated separately. 8. The above recording does not satisfy the requirement of section 271(1)(c) of the Act as explained by this Court in Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. s case (supra). Further even on a detailed perusal of the assessment order no satisfaction of the Assessing Officer that penalty proceedings are required to be initiated agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
