M/S. NAMRATA PROMOTERS & BUILDERS,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,

On hearing both the sides on these appeals of the assessee, we find the appeals are required to be allowed in favour of the assessee without going into the merits of the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In this regard, we perused the assessment orders as well as penalty orders. We find the issues relating to the recording of satisfaction in the assessment proceedings for enabling the Assessing Officer to issue notice u/s 274 of the Act are common or significant. In this regard, we perused the order of the Assessing Officer in general and contents of para 7 in particular. For the sake of completeness, the relevant lines relating to the satisfaction is extracted as follows :- “07. ………., hence it is clear that the assessee had tried to conceal the particulars of income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income in the return filed in response to sec. 139. Therefore, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are hereby separately initiated.” 4. Similarly, we also perused the penalty order dated 28.09.2015 and find the contents of para 7 are relevant to extract and the same are as follows :- “07. In view of the above facts, I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income and thereby has concealed his income for the A.Y. 2010-11. Therefore, I consider this to be a fit case for imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly, a penalty of Rs.14,69,600/- is hereby imposed on the assessee u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961……..” 5. From the above, it is evident that the Assessing Officer invoked both the limbs of clause (c) of section 271(1) of the Act by using the conjunction “and” while recording the satisfaction in the assessment order. This manner of giving satisfaction certainly falls sought of the legal requirement. Such recording happens only when there is an ambiguity in the mind of the Assessing Officer qua the nature of default.

At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee deviated from the grounds raised before us and fairly submitted that this appeal is not pressed. 9. On hearing both the sides, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as not pressed. 10. In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13 are allowed and the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2013-14 is dismissed as not pressed. Order pronounced on 31st day of December, 2018. Sd/- Sd/- (िवकास अव�थी /VIKAS AWASTHY) (डी. क�णाकरा राव/D. KARUNAKARA RAO) �याियक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 31st December, 2018. Sujeet आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The CIT(A)-12, Pune. 4. The Pr. CIT, Central, Pune. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “ए” ब�च, 5. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 6. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.