9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 670X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evenue is aggrieved by an order dated 13.11.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal('Tribunal') Delhi Bench ?E?, New Delhi in ITA No. 1036/Del/2005 for the Assessment Year 1995-96 concerning penalty proceedings under Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act. The Assessing Officer ('AO') while finalising the assessment for the Assessment Year 1995-96 stated towards the end of the ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Limited (2000) 246 ITR 568 the penalty proceedings cannot be sustained. We may note at the outset that the decision of this Court in Ram Commercial Enterprises Limited has been approved by the Supreme Court in Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC) and T.Ashok Pai v. Commissioner of Income Tax [2007] 292 ITR 11 (SC). While no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cision of the larger Bench. Assuming the Revenue were to succeed before the larger Bench, and the question referred to it is answered in the affirmative, it would mean that it is sufficient that the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for initiating penalty proceedings against an Assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is discernible from the assessment order itself and that such satisfacti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dings should be initiated. While it is true that the Assessee could not file confirmation from the parties from whom the amounts were received, that by itself does not indicate that there was furnishing of incorrect particulars. In fact we do not find that the assessment order was so much about concealment of particulars as about the interpretation of the information furnished by the Assessee. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
