Akhil Bhartiya Prathamik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust v. ADIT

5 DTR 429High Court#2291 most cited

What is Akhil Bhartiya Prathamik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust v. ADIT authority for?

To levy a penalty under section 271(1)(b), the Assessing Officer (AO) must record satisfaction in the assessment order. Mere initiation of penalty proceedings without such recorded satisfaction does not confer jurisdiction on the AO to levy the penalty.

50

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,359 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Akhil Bhartiya Prathamik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust · section 271(1)(b) · penalty levy jurisdiction · recording satisfaction · assessment order · Assessing Officer · 5 DTR 429 · initiation of penalty proceedings · section 142(1) · section 143(3)

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

Issues it is cited on

section 273section 129section 273bsection 271(1)(b)search assessmentlevy of penaltysection 271reasonable causesection 274section 27section 142(1)search and seizure

Judgments citing Akhil Bhartiya Prathamik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust v. ADIT

Shri Ranjan Kumar Paul, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-Xxvii, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee (in ITA Nos

ITA 866/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.866 To 872/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) Shri Ranjan Kumar Paul Vs. Dcit, Cc-Xxvii, Kolkata Nivedita Apartment, 135, N.S.C Bose Aayakar Bhawan Purva, 110, Road, Kolkata – 700 103. Shanti Palli, E.M. By-Pass, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afqpp 0503 A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri Avijit Dey, Advocate Respondent By :Shri A.K. Tiwari, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/11/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Captioned Seven Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years 2006-07 To 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 21, Kolkata In Appeal No.418/Dcit,Cc-4(3),Kol/Cit(A)-21/Kol/14-15 Dated 17.02.2016, Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao Of Rs.20,000/- U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. These Seven Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Different Assessment Years, Identical Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. 3. Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.866/Kol/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 Is Taken As A Lead Case. 4. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee (In Lead Case In Ita No.866/Kol/2016) Are As Under: “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Penalty To The Tune Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Act. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Deleted The Entire Penalty Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed U/S 271(1)(B) Since The Assessee Was Prevented By Reasonable Cause For Non-Appearance During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings.

For Appellant: Shri Avijit Dey, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Tiwari, CIT
Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

…. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that the instant appeal is squarely covered by the decision of the Co- ordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan trust vs ACIT 5 DTR 429 (Delhi Tribunal) wherein the Coordinate Bench in paras 2.4 and 2.5 has held as under:- “2.4 Coming to the issue of recording of satisfaction, it may be mentioned that mere initiation of penalty does not amount to satisfaction as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (2001) 167 CTR (Del) 321 : (2000)…

M/S Baba Lokenath Rice Mill, Dakshin Dinajpur vs. DCIT, CC-Xxvii, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee (in ITA Nos

ITA 798/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2017AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.792 To 798/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) M/S. Baba Lokenath Rice Mill Vs. Dcit, Cc-Xxvii, Kolkata Hilli, Dist. – Dakshin Dinajpur. Aayakar Bhawan Purva, 110, Shanti Palli, E.M. By-Pass, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacfb 8831 C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri Avijit Dey, Advocate Respondent By :Shri A.K. Tiwari, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/11/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Captioned Seven Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years 2006-07 To 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 21, Kolkata In Appeal No.392/Dcit,Cc-4(3),Kol/Cit(A)-21/Kol/14-15 Dated 17.02.2016, Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao Of Rs.20,000/- U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. These Seven Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Different Assessment Years, Identical Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. 3. Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.792/Kol/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 Is Taken As A Lead Case. 4. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee (In Lead Case In Ita No.792/Kol/2016) Are As Under: “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Penalty To The Tune Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Act. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Deleted The Entire Penalty Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed U/S 271(1)(B) Since The Assessee Was Prevented By Reasonable Cause For Non-Appearance During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings.

For Appellant: Shri Avijit Dey, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Tiwari, CIT
Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

…. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that the instant appeal is squarely covered by the decision of the Co- ordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan trust vs ACIT 5 DTR 429 (Delhi Tribunal) wherein the Coordinate Bench in paras 2.4 and 2.5 has held as under:- “2.4 Coming to the issue of recording of satisfaction, it may be mentioned that mere initiation of penalty does not amount to satisfaction as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (2001) 167 CTR (Del) 321 : (2000)…

M/S Baba Lokenath Rice Mill, Dakshin Dinajpur vs. DCIT, CC-Xxvii, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee (in ITA Nos

ITA 797/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.792 To 798/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) M/S. Baba Lokenath Rice Mill Vs. Dcit, Cc-Xxvii, Kolkata Hilli, Dist. – Dakshin Dinajpur. Aayakar Bhawan Purva, 110, Shanti Palli, E.M. By-Pass, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacfb 8831 C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri Avijit Dey, Advocate Respondent By :Shri A.K. Tiwari, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/11/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Captioned Seven Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years 2006-07 To 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 21, Kolkata In Appeal No.392/Dcit,Cc-4(3),Kol/Cit(A)-21/Kol/14-15 Dated 17.02.2016, Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao Of Rs.20,000/- U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. These Seven Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Different Assessment Years, Identical Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. 3. Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.792/Kol/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 Is Taken As A Lead Case. 4. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee (In Lead Case In Ita No.792/Kol/2016) Are As Under: “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Penalty To The Tune Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Act. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Deleted The Entire Penalty Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed U/S 271(1)(B) Since The Assessee Was Prevented By Reasonable Cause For Non-Appearance During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings.

For Appellant: Shri Avijit Dey, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Tiwari, CIT
Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

…. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that the instant appeal is squarely covered by the decision of the Co- ordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan trust vs ACIT 5 DTR 429 (Delhi Tribunal) wherein the Coordinate Bench in paras 2.4 and 2.5 has held as under:- “2.4 Coming to the issue of recording of satisfaction, it may be mentioned that mere initiation of penalty does not amount to satisfaction as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (2001) 167 CTR (Del) 321 : (2000)…

M/S Baba Lokenath Rice Mill, Dakshin Dinajpur vs. DCIT, CC-Xxvii, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee (in ITA Nos

ITA 796/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.792 To 798/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) M/S. Baba Lokenath Rice Mill Vs. Dcit, Cc-Xxvii, Kolkata Hilli, Dist. – Dakshin Dinajpur. Aayakar Bhawan Purva, 110, Shanti Palli, E.M. By-Pass, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacfb 8831 C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri Avijit Dey, Advocate Respondent By :Shri A.K. Tiwari, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/11/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Captioned Seven Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years 2006-07 To 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 21, Kolkata In Appeal No.392/Dcit,Cc-4(3),Kol/Cit(A)-21/Kol/14-15 Dated 17.02.2016, Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao Of Rs.20,000/- U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. These Seven Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Different Assessment Years, Identical Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. 3. Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.792/Kol/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 Is Taken As A Lead Case. 4. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee (In Lead Case In Ita No.792/Kol/2016) Are As Under: “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Penalty To The Tune Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Act. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Deleted The Entire Penalty Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed U/S 271(1)(B) Since The Assessee Was Prevented By Reasonable Cause For Non-Appearance During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings.

For Appellant: Shri Avijit Dey, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Tiwari, CIT
Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

…. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that the instant appeal is squarely covered by the decision of the Co- ordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan trust vs ACIT 5 DTR 429 (Delhi Tribunal) wherein the Coordinate Bench in paras 2.4 and 2.5 has held as under:- “2.4 Coming to the issue of recording of satisfaction, it may be mentioned that mere initiation of penalty does not amount to satisfaction as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (2001) 167 CTR (Del) 321 : (2000)…

M/S Baba Lokenath Rice Mill, Dakshin Dinajpur vs. DCIT, CC-Xxvii, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee (in ITA Nos

ITA 795/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.792 To 798/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) M/S. Baba Lokenath Rice Mill Vs. Dcit, Cc-Xxvii, Kolkata Hilli, Dist. – Dakshin Dinajpur. Aayakar Bhawan Purva, 110, Shanti Palli, E.M. By-Pass, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacfb 8831 C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri Avijit Dey, Advocate Respondent By :Shri A.K. Tiwari, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/11/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Captioned Seven Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years 2006-07 To 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 21, Kolkata In Appeal No.392/Dcit,Cc-4(3),Kol/Cit(A)-21/Kol/14-15 Dated 17.02.2016, Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao Of Rs.20,000/- U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. These Seven Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Different Assessment Years, Identical Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. 3. Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.792/Kol/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 Is Taken As A Lead Case. 4. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee (In Lead Case In Ita No.792/Kol/2016) Are As Under: “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Penalty To The Tune Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Act. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Deleted The Entire Penalty Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed U/S 271(1)(B) Since The Assessee Was Prevented By Reasonable Cause For Non-Appearance During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings.

For Appellant: Shri Avijit Dey, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Tiwari, CIT
Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

…. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that the instant appeal is squarely covered by the decision of the Co- ordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan trust vs ACIT 5 DTR 429 (Delhi Tribunal) wherein the Coordinate Bench in paras 2.4 and 2.5 has held as under:- “2.4 Coming to the issue of recording of satisfaction, it may be mentioned that mere initiation of penalty does not amount to satisfaction as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (2001) 167 CTR (Del) 321 : (2000)…

M/S Baba Lokenath Rice Mill, Dakshin Dinajpur vs. DCIT, CC-Xxvii, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee (in ITA Nos

ITA 794/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.792 To 798/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) M/S. Baba Lokenath Rice Mill Vs. Dcit, Cc-Xxvii, Kolkata Hilli, Dist. – Dakshin Dinajpur. Aayakar Bhawan Purva, 110, Shanti Palli, E.M. By-Pass, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacfb 8831 C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri Avijit Dey, Advocate Respondent By :Shri A.K. Tiwari, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/11/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Captioned Seven Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years 2006-07 To 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 21, Kolkata In Appeal No.392/Dcit,Cc-4(3),Kol/Cit(A)-21/Kol/14-15 Dated 17.02.2016, Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao Of Rs.20,000/- U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. These Seven Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Different Assessment Years, Identical Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. 3. Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.792/Kol/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 Is Taken As A Lead Case. 4. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee (In Lead Case In Ita No.792/Kol/2016) Are As Under: “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Penalty To The Tune Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Act. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Deleted The Entire Penalty Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed U/S 271(1)(B) Since The Assessee Was Prevented By Reasonable Cause For Non-Appearance During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings.

For Appellant: Shri Avijit Dey, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Tiwari, CIT
Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

…. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that the instant appeal is squarely covered by the decision of the Co- ordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan trust vs ACIT 5 DTR 429 (Delhi Tribunal) wherein the Coordinate Bench in paras 2.4 and 2.5 has held as under:- “2.4 Coming to the issue of recording of satisfaction, it may be mentioned that mere initiation of penalty does not amount to satisfaction as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (2001) 167 CTR (Del) 321 : (2000)…

M/S Baba Lokenath Rice Mill, Dakshin Dinajpur vs. DCIT, CC-Xxvii, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee (in ITA Nos

ITA 793/KOL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.792 To 798/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) M/S. Baba Lokenath Rice Mill Vs. Dcit, Cc-Xxvii, Kolkata Hilli, Dist. – Dakshin Dinajpur. Aayakar Bhawan Purva, 110, Shanti Palli, E.M. By-Pass, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacfb 8831 C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri Avijit Dey, Advocate Respondent By :Shri A.K. Tiwari, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/11/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Captioned Seven Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years 2006-07 To 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 21, Kolkata In Appeal No.392/Dcit,Cc-4(3),Kol/Cit(A)-21/Kol/14-15 Dated 17.02.2016, Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao Of Rs.20,000/- U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. These Seven Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Different Assessment Years, Identical Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. 3. Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.792/Kol/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 Is Taken As A Lead Case. 4. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee (In Lead Case In Ita No.792/Kol/2016) Are As Under: “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Penalty To The Tune Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Act. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Deleted The Entire Penalty Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed U/S 271(1)(B) Since The Assessee Was Prevented By Reasonable Cause For Non-Appearance During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings.

For Appellant: Shri Avijit Dey, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Tiwari, CIT
Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

…. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that the instant appeal is squarely covered by the decision of the Co- ordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan trust vs ACIT 5 DTR 429 (Delhi Tribunal) wherein the Coordinate Bench in paras 2.4 and 2.5 has held as under:- “2.4 Coming to the issue of recording of satisfaction, it may be mentioned that mere initiation of penalty does not amount to satisfaction as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (2001) 167 CTR (Del) 321 : (2000)…

M/S Baba Lokenath Rice Mill, Dakshin Dinajpur vs. DCIT, CC-Xxvii, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee (in ITA Nos

ITA 792/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.792 To 798/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 To 2012-13) M/S. Baba Lokenath Rice Mill Vs. Dcit, Cc-Xxvii, Kolkata Hilli, Dist. – Dakshin Dinajpur. Aayakar Bhawan Purva, 110, Shanti Palli, E.M. By-Pass, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacfb 8831 C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri Avijit Dey, Advocate Respondent By :Shri A.K. Tiwari, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/11/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Captioned Seven Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years 2006-07 To 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 21, Kolkata In Appeal No.392/Dcit,Cc-4(3),Kol/Cit(A)-21/Kol/14-15 Dated 17.02.2016, Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao Of Rs.20,000/- U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. These Seven Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Different Assessment Years, Identical Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. 3. Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.792/Kol/2016 Assessment Year 2006-07 Is Taken As A Lead Case. 4. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee (In Lead Case In Ita No.792/Kol/2016) Are As Under: “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Penalty To The Tune Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Act. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Deleted The Entire Penalty Of Rs.20,000/- Imposed U/S 271(1)(B) Since The Assessee Was Prevented By Reasonable Cause For Non-Appearance During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings.

For Appellant: Shri Avijit Dey, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Tiwari, CIT
Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

…. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that the instant appeal is squarely covered by the decision of the Co- ordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan trust vs ACIT 5 DTR 429 (Delhi Tribunal) wherein the Coordinate Bench in paras 2.4 and 2.5 has held as under:- “2.4 Coming to the issue of recording of satisfaction, it may be mentioned that mere initiation of penalty does not amount to satisfaction as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (2001) 167 CTR (Del) 321 : (2000)…

Carreen Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5737/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)

…evant material ITA 5737/Del/2015 Assessment Year 2012-13 placed on record. We find that the instant appeal is squarely covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan trust vs ACIT 5 DTR 429 (Delhi Tribunal) wherein the Coordinate Bench in paras 2.4 and 2.5 has held as under:- “2.4 Coming to the issue of recording of satisfaction, it may be mentioned that mere initiation of penalty does not amount to satisfaction as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (2001) 167 CTR (Del) 321 : (200…

M/S. Globus Infocom Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 738/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiay: 2010-11 Globus Infocom Limited, Vs Dcit, C-1/2, Safdarjung Development Area, Circle-12(1), New Delhi-110016 New Delhi. (Pan: Aabcg3985C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Mr. Pratap Gupta, Ca Respondent By: Shri T. Vasanthan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.04.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.06.2016

For Appellant: Mr. Pratap Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AY: 2010-11 Globus Infocom Limited, vs DCIT, C-1/2, Safdarjung Development Area, Circle-12(1), New Delhi-110016 New Delhi. (PAN: AABCG3985C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Mr. Pratap Gupta, CA Respondent by: Shri T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 13.04.2016 Date of pronouncement: 29.06.2016 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the impugned order dated 6.12.2013 passed…

Akhil Bhartiya Prathamik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust v. ADIT (5 DTR 429) — Cited in 50 Judgments | BharatTax