TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 692X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hi Bench 'H', New Delhi in ITA No. 2072/Delhi/2006 relevant for the assessment year 2000-01. 2. The Assessing Officer sought to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') by his assessment order dated 31-3-2001 where at the foot of the order, he observed as under:- Assessed at ₹ 23,86,713. Issued demand notice and chall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. [2000] 246 ITR 568 and held that since there was no recording of satisfaction of the Assessing Officer in the order of assessment that penalty proceedings must be initiated, the appeal preferred by the revenue should be dismissed. 5. At the outset it requires to be noted that the decision of this Court in Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd.'s case (supr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wait the decision of the Larger Bench. 8. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing 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 are CIT v. O.K. Hosiery Mills (P.) Ltd. [2007] 165 Taxman 515 (Delhi), CIT v. Bharat Hotels Ltd. [2007] 165 Taxman 593 (Delhi), CIT v. Fibro Tech Chemicals [IT Appeal No. 954 (Delhi) of 2006, dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
