TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1776X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. [ 2013 (11) TMI 174 - ITAT DELHI] we hold that in absence of any prima-facie satisfaction recorded by the ld. Assessing Officer for initiation of penalty in the assessment order, the penalty levied by the AO is without any jurisdiction and void ab-initio, therefore, order of the learned Assessing Officer passed under 271(1)(c ) of Act is quashed - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 3391/Del/2013 - - - Dated:- 30-11-2015 - SHRI I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Appellant : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv, Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv For the Respondent : Sh. Sujit Kumar, Sr. DR ORDER PER O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANTMEMBER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w as the assessment order framed under section 144 dated 31/12/2008 and the same is illegal, beyond jurisdiction and void ab-initio and further erred in observing that ₹ 10,39,870/- was unaccounted income of the assessee and addition was made in the assessment order without giving opportunity of hearing and in violation of principles of natural justice. 4. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in levying penalty u/s 271(l)(c) on the addition made in the assessment order u/s 144 dated 31/12/2008 as the same are also contrary to law and facts. 5. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1)( c) of the Act for concealment/ furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. Assessing officer again observed non-compliance on the part of the assessee, but looking to the limitation, he levied penalty amounting to ₹ 3,18,200/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on 30.06.2009. The assessee carried the matter of penalty before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) by filing appeal before him, however, could not succeed. Aggrieved, the assessee is before us. 3. The effective ground of appeal of the assessee is that in absence of any satisfaction recorded in the assessment order, the penalty has been imposed without any jurisdiction and also, the assessee was not provided sufficient opportunity of being heard. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso tried to defend himself against imposition of penalty since these proceedings were initiated separately in assessment order. In the case of M. Sajjan Raj Nahar and Others Vs. CIT (Mad) 280 ITR 230, it has been held that mentioning the words penalty proceedings initiated separately in assessment order is sufficient in invoking penal action. 6. Perusal of the above finding shows that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has confirmed the penalty on the assumption that the words penalty proceeding initiated were mentioned in the assessment order and same were sufficient to invoke the penal action in the case of the assessee. But, when we perused the order of the ld. Assessing Officer passed u/s 144 of the Act dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the Assessing Officer would arrive at a decision, i.e., a final conclusion only after hearing the assessee. (iv) . 7. Following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Madhushree Gupta (supra), the Tribunal in the case of the Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. (supra) has also held as under:- Respectfully following the judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Madhushree Gupta (supra) and ITAT Delhi Bench in the cases of Cornerstone Financial Services (supra), Global Green Limited (supra) and ITAT Kolkata Bench in the case of Budge Budge Co. Ltd. (supra), in the present case, we hold that the Assessing Officer has not recorded his satisfaction for init ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
