TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 880X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rly within his jurisdiction, despite the fact that the original assessment order did not mention anything about initiating penalty proceedings. Ext.P3 assessment order issued after remand, is a proceeding under this Act and satisfies the ingredients of section 271(1)(c) and hence, the assessing officer was vested with the jurisdiction to record his satisfaction and thereafter initiate penalty proceedings. Coming to the instant case, nowhere in Ext.P2 order has the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax expressed his satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings. On the contrary, he merely set aside the assessment order in its entirety and remanded the case for a fresh consideration by the assessing officer. Thus, while issuing the order of assessment, as per Ext.P3, the assessing officer was bestowed with all powers as in an original assessment, including the power to express his satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings. In such a view of the matter, I find that the initiation of proceedings for imposing penalty and the consequent imposition was within the jurisdiction and authority of the assessing officer. Hence there is no merit in the challenge raised. WP dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Learned Counsel based his contentions on the fact that the original assessment order had not expressed the satisfaction of the assessing officer necessary to initiate proceedings for imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. According to the learned counsel, the subsequent order of assessment issued consequent to the order under section 263 of the Act cannot confer the jurisdiction upon the assessing officer to initiate proceedings for imposing penalty. Learned Counsel relied upon the decisions in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Super Metal Re-Rollers (P) Ltd. [(2004) 265 ITR 82 (Del.)], Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax v. J.K.D's Costa [(1982) 133 ITR 7 (Del.) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Keshrimal Parasmal [(1986 157 ITR 484 (Raj.)], Commissioner of Income Tax v. C.R.K. Swamy [(2002) 254 ITR 158 (Mad.)] Commissioner of Income Tax v. Parmanand M.Patel [(2005) 278 ITR 3 (Guj.)] Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana v. Rakesh Nain Trivedi [(2016) 282 CTR 205 (Punjab Haryana)]. 4. Sri.Jose Joseph, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, submitted that the order assailed in this writ petition can be the subject matter of an appeal and henc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e issues on the basis of available records, he admitted that virtually no inquiries were made by the AO at the time of assessment and only a very sketchy order was passed. He stated that the assessee has no objection if the matter is revised to the file of the AO provided the assessee is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard............... Considering the no objection of the assessee, the assessment order dated 30-12-2016 is set aside to the AO for re-assessment by passing Speaking Order and examination of impounded material and other legal issues emerging out of facts of the case. 9. Finally, in the concluding paragraph, the following are observed: 10. Accordingly, the order dated 21-06-2017 is set aside with the direction to pass a fresh assessment order on the above issues, expeditiously without waiting for the fag end of time baring date, after affording a reasonable opportunity to being heard to the assessee. 10. A reading of the aforesaid observations clearly indicates that the initial order of assessment was wholly set aside and the proceedings were remanded as an open remand. The contention that the words on the above issues in the concluding p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Income-tax Officer was not satisfied in the course of the assessment proceeding that the firm had concealed its income. The assessment order is dated the 10th of November, 1951, and there is an endorsement at the foot of the assessment order by the Income-tax Officer that action under S. 28 had been taken for concealment of income indicating clearly that the Income Tax Officer was satisfied in the course of the assessment proceeding that the firm had concealed its income. 13. In the context of the circumstances arising in this case, it is profitable to bear in mind the distinction between the proceedings under section 263 and the initiation of penalty under section 271(1)(c). There is no quarrel that while issuing orders under section 263 of the Act, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax cannot direct penalty to be imposed. However, when in the exercise of powers under section 263 of the Act, an assessment order was set aside and remanded back to the assessing officer, all the powers of an original assessing officer gets vested by operation of law. In such proceedings, if the assessing officer expresses his satisfaction that penalty proceedings can be initiated, then, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
