HC held that penalty proceedings initiated under two sections ...

Tax Penalty Proceedings Require Contemporaneous Satisfaction During Assessment, Cannot Be Retrospectively Justified or Reconstructed

May 14, 2025

Case Laws Income Tax HC

HC held that penalty proceedings initiated under two sections simultaneously are valid, but satisfaction must be recorded during assessment proceedings. The AO cannot record reasons for penalty after proceedings conclude. The tribunal's order quashing the revisional authority's directive was upheld, effectively ruling against the revenue. The core legal principle emphasizes that procedural satisfaction for imposing penalties must be contemporaneous with assessment proceedings, not retrospectively constructed. The decision reinforces strict procedural compliance in tax penalty impositions, ensuring that administrative discretion is exercised within prescribed temporal boundaries.

View Source

← Previous Next →

HC held that penalty proceedings initiated under two sections ...

Tax Penalty Proceedings Require Contemporaneous Satisfaction During Assessment, Cannot Be Retrospectively Justified or Reconstructed

May 14, 2025

Case Laws Income Tax HC

You may also like:

Revision u/s 263 - penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB(1A) - The mandate under section 263 of the Act do not give any power to CIT to impose his satisfaction over the...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - non recording of satisfaction - When satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of IT Act is recorded by the AO in...

HC ruled penalty proceedings under sections 271D and 271E require explicit satisfaction to be recorded by Assessing Officer during reassessment. Mere recording of...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was levied by the Assessing Officer solely based on the order of the Income Tax Settlement Commission withdrawing immunity from penalty and...

The ITAT Delhi held that the levy of penalty u/s 271D without valid satisfaction for alleged violation u/s 269SS is not justified. The AO must record satisfaction in the...

Penalty u/s 271D or 271E - Penalty u/s.271D or 271E of the Act is concerned, those are independent proceedings and having nothing to do with assessment proceedings or...

Penalty u/s 271D / 271E - violation of provisions of Sec.269SS and 269T - basis of presumption u/s 132(4A) - Period of limitation - The Tribunal found that the penalty...

The ITAT held that for penalty u/s 271D for contravention of section 269SS, recording satisfaction by AO is mandatory. Citing Jaya Laxmi Rice Mills case, it emphasized...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - recording of satisfaction - mere direction in the assessment order to initiate penalty proceedings - Concealment/furnishing inaccurate...

The assessment u/s 153C mandates the recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer (AO) upon discovery of material likely to "have a bearing on the determination of...

Offence u/s 276(C)(2) and 277 - Allegation of willful tax evasion and non-payment of admitted tax - compounding application. The petitioner submitted income tax return...

Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - The Assessing Officer has to record satisfaction before initiating penalty proceedings and the penalty proceedings are subject to...

Validity of Penalty u/s 271D and u/s 271E - Penalty proceeding as independent of the assessment proceeding - absence of satisfaction recorded in the reassessment u/s 147...

For payment of tax, no assessment order is required and only in case of short payment of tax assessment is required after due notice - but for the deferral in payment of...

The Appellate Tribunal held that the assessment orders issued u/s 153C for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13 were beyond the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer...

Quick Updates: