TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 656X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ( Tribunal ) Delhi Bench E , New Delhi in ITA No. 778/D/2000 relevant for the assessment year 1994-95. 2. The issue raised in this appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is very narrow and is being decided, effectively, on a demurrer as it were. In CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. [2000] 246 ITR 568 (Delhi), this Court took the view that if ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fect has been accepted as correct, but the alternative contention raised by learned counsel for the Revenue in Indus Valley Promoters Ltd. s case (supra) was referred to a larger Bench. The substantial question of law based on the alternative submission that has been referred to a larger Bench of three Judges reads as follows: Whether satisfaction of the officer initiating the proceedings und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thout expressing any view on the issue pending consideration before the larger Bench, for the purposes of the present case, we proceed on the basis that in law the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer may be discerned from the order of assessment making the initiation of penalty proceedings valid. 7. Proceeding on this hypothesis, we have examined the assessment order dated 27-3-1997 passed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, or (d)****** he may direct that such person shall pay by way of a penalty. . . . There can be no doubt from a reading of the above provision that the Assessing Officer has to be satisfied that the assessee has either concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that there is no error in the opinion expressed by the Tribunal and the decision in Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. s case (supra ) was fully applicable to the facts of the case. 11. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the issue pending before the larger Bench. We have proceeded on the basis that even if that questions were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
