CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd.

246 ITR 568High Court2000#1055 most cited

What is CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. authority for?

The Assessing Officer must record clear satisfaction in the assessment order that the assessee concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars, for initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). Without such recorded satisfaction, the penalty proceedings lack jurisdiction and are unsustainable in law.

103

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. · section 271(1)(c) penalty · recording satisfaction · assessment order · penalty initiation · concealment of income · inaccurate particulars · penalty jurisdiction · section 143(3) · burden of proof penalty

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 253(5)Section 272A(1)(d)

Issues it is cited on

section 271(1)section 271section 27section 14section 143(3)

Judgments citing CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd.

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)

…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) 246 ITR 568 (Del). In absence of recording of the satisfaction in the assessment order, mere initiation of penalty will not confer jurisdiction on the AO to levy the penalty. 2.5 We also find that finally the order was passed under s.143(3) and not under s. 144 of the Act. This means that subsequent compliance in the assessment proceedings was considered as…

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)

…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) 246 ITR 568 (Del). In absence of recording of the satisfaction in the assessment order, mere initiation of penalty will not confer jurisdiction on the AO to levy the penalty. 2.5 We also find that finally the order was passed under s.143(3) and not under s. 144 of the Act. This means that subsequent compliance in the assessment proceedings was considered as…

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)

…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) 246 ITR 568 (Del). In absence of recording of the satisfaction in the assessment order, mere initiation of penalty will not confer jurisdiction on the AO to levy the penalty. 2.5 We also find that finally the order was passed under s.143(3) and not under s. 144 of the Act. This means that subsequent compliance in the assessment proceedings was considered as…

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)

…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) 246 ITR 568 (Del). In absence of recording of the satisfaction in the assessment order, mere initiation of penalty will not confer jurisdiction on the AO to levy the penalty. 2.5 We also find that finally the order was passed under s.143(3) and not under s. 144 of the Act. This means that subsequent compliance in the assessment proceedings was considered as…

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)

…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) 246 ITR 568 (Del). In absence of recording of the satisfaction in the assessment order, mere initiation of penalty will not confer jurisdiction on the AO to levy the penalty. 2.5 We also find that finally the order was passed under s.143(3) and not under s. 144 of the Act. This means that subsequent compliance in the assessment proceedings was considered as…

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)

…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) 246 ITR 568 (Del). In absence of recording of the satisfaction in the assessment order, mere initiation of penalty will not confer jurisdiction on the AO to levy the penalty. 2.5 We also find that finally the order was passed under s.143(3) and not under s. 144 of the Act. This means that subsequent compliance in the assessment proceedings was considered as…

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)

…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) 246 ITR 568 (Del). In absence of recording of the satisfaction in the assessment order, mere initiation of penalty will not confer jurisdiction on the AO to levy the penalty. 2.5 We also find that finally the order was passed under s.143(3) and not under s. 144 of the Act. This means that subsequent compliance in the assessment proceedings was considered as…

M/S Aditya Chemicals Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5006/DEL/2013[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2017AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[Assessment Year: 1997-98] Aditya Chemicals Ltd Vs. The I.T.O C/O Rra Tax India Company Ward-1(2) D -28, South Extn. Part - 1 New Delhi. New Delhi Pan : Aaaca 2835 J [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.11.2017 Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Tanena, Adv Shri Acrhit Rehan, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jain, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Tanena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…for this reason also in view of following judgments of jurisdictional Court: CIT v. Madhu Shree Gupta 317 ITR 107 (Del) (CLC Pg no. 81-99) D.M. Manasvi v. CIT 86 ITR 557 (SC) CIT v. S.V. Angidi Chettiar 44 ITR 739 (SC) CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. 246 ITR 568 (Del) (CLC Page no. 100-103) Diwan Enterprises v. CIT 246 ITR 571(Del) (CLC Pg no. 104-111) CIT vs Munish Iron Store 63 ITR 484 (P&H) Global Green Company Limited vs. DCIT in ITA No.1390/Del/2011 AY 2001-02, ITAT Delhi M/s Victor Electrodes Ltd. vs. ITO in ITA No. 334/D/2009 A.Y. 2006-07 dated 9.8.2012 III) Without prejudice to the above, it i…

Sh. Mahavir Singh, Meerut vs. ITO, Meerut

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 3234/DEL/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahua.Y. : 2003-04

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Malik, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A.Y. : 2003-04 SH. MAHAVIR SINGH, vs. ITO, WARD 1(4), C/O M/S MALIK & CO., ADV., AAYAKAR BHAWAN, 305/7, THAPAR NAGAR, BHANSALI GROUND, MEERUT CITY MEERUT MEERUT (PAN: AXEPS2723C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Sanjay Malik, Adv. Department by : Sh. Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR O R D E R PER H.S. SIDHU, JM This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Meerut dated 31.3.2015 pertaining to assessment yea…

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/s Hyderabad Security and Off Set Printers Ltd

ITTA/500/2017HC Telangana07 Nov 2017

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

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)

…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) 246 ITR 568 (Del). In absence of recording of the satisfaction in the assessment order, mere initiation of penalty will not confer jurisdiction on the AO to levy the penalty. 2.5 We also find that finally the order was passed under s. 143(3) and not under s. 144 of the Act. This means that subsequent compliance in the assessment proceedings was considered as…

Avadh Narayan K Yadav, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 991/MUM/2015[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2017AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 1998-99

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin Chhag, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(a)Section 69

…tice issued by the AO u/s 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act is not specific whether it is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. Reliance was placed by him on the decision in the case of CIT vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises (2000) 246 ITR 568(Del.), CIT vs. Rampur Engineering Co. Ltd. (2009) 309 ITR 143 (Del.) (FB), CIT vs. Manjunath Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Karn.), CIT vs. SSA’s Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 taxmann.com 248 (SC) and CIT vs. Shri Samson Perinchery in ITA No. 953, 1097, 1154 & 1226/2014 (Bombay High Court). 5 Regarding the merit of the case, the Ld.…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Modipon Ltd., Ghaziabad

In the result appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3337/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.P.Tolani, Hon’Ble & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Vs. Modipon Ltd, Ward-5(4), Hapur Road, Modi Nagar, New Delhi Ghaziabad Pan:Aaacm2069E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Santosh Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35DSection 37(1)

…d hence on that ground itself, no penalty is leviable. Secondly, nowhere in the assessment order we find any satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer as to concealment by the assessee. This is a prerequisite Page 7 of 8 before Commercial Enterprises in 246 ITR 568 and a host of other judgments which followed thereafter. Therefore, on any count, the penalty is not sustainable and hence we uphold the order of the CIT (Appeals) cancelling the same." 6. Reason given by the ITAT that in the assessment order, no satisfaction is recorded by the Assessing Officer as to concealment by the assessee and setting aside…

ITO, Jaipur vs. Ravi Sancheti, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1061/JPR/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 May 2017AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik(JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

…the assessee in furnishing material facts or particulars of such income or expenditure. In this case the assessee succeeded even on the point of missing of satisfaction on the basis of decision in CIT Vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. [2000] 122 Taxman 620/246 ITR 568 (Delhi). In the similar situation the Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Mahabaleshwar Gas & Chemical (P) Ltd. ITA 1061/JP/2016_ 5 ITO Vs Ravi Sancheti [2008] 170 Taxman 38 held that disallowance of depreciation claim in assessment is a matter of course, of difference of opinion and does not invite penalty action, more so if the assessee has made a bo…

Paresh S. Joshi, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(4), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 5073/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)

…o in what manner he furnished the particulars of his income. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that for the said purpose the Income Tax Officer must arrive at its satisfaction in this behalf. [See Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd., 246 ITR 568 and Diwan Enterprises v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 246 ITR 571]. 18. The order imposing penalty is quasi-criminal in nature and, thus, burden lies on the department to establish that the assessee Shri Paresh S. Joshi had concealed his income. Since burden of proof in penalty proceedings varies from that in the assessment proceeding, a finding…

Paresh S. Joshi, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(4), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 5072/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)

…o in what manner he furnished the particulars of his income. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that for the said purpose the Income Tax Officer must arrive at its satisfaction in this behalf. [See Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd., 246 ITR 568 and Diwan Enterprises v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 246 ITR 571]. 18. The order imposing penalty is quasi-criminal in nature and, thus, burden lies on the department to establish that the assessee Shri Paresh S. Joshi had concealed his income. Since burden of proof in penalty proceedings varies from that in the assessment proceeding, a finding…

Paresh S. Joshi, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(4), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 5071/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)

…o in what manner he furnished the particulars of his income. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that for the said purpose the Income Tax Officer must arrive at its satisfaction in this behalf. [See Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd., 246 ITR 568 and Diwan Enterprises v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 246 ITR 571]. 18. The order imposing penalty is quasi-criminal in nature and, thus, burden lies on the department to establish that the assessee Shri Paresh S. Joshi had concealed his income. Since burden of proof in penalty proceedings varies from that in the assessment proceeding, a finding…

Paresh S. Joshi, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(2)(4), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 5070/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)

…o in what manner he furnished the particulars of his income. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that for the said purpose the Income Tax Officer must arrive at its satisfaction in this behalf. [See Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd., 246 ITR 568 and Diwan Enterprises v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 246 ITR 571]. 18. The order imposing penalty is quasi-criminal in nature and, thus, burden lies on the department to establish that the assessee Shri Paresh S. Joshi had concealed his income. Since burden of proof in penalty proceedings varies from that in the assessment proceeding, a finding…

Asst CIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Trends Holding & Consultancy P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the appellant is allowed

ITA 7379/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.7379/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बनाम/ Acit 2(3) M/S. Trends Holdings & R. No.552, 5Th Floor, Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, 11, Horizone View, 381, Mumbai – 400020 J. General Bhonsale Marg, Opp. Sachivalaya Gymkhana Mumbai - 400021 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaact3203D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Sambit Mishra
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…how and in what manner he furnished the particulars of his income. it is beyond any doubt or dispute that for the said purpose the ITO must arrive at a satisfaction in this behalf. See CIT Vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (2001) 167 CTR (Del) 321 : (2000) 246 ITR 568 (Del.) and Diwan Enterprises Vs. CIT (2001) 167 CTR (Del) 324 : (2000) 246 ITR 571 (Del.) 47. It is furthermore of some significance that the CIT(A) in his order dated 30th Nov., 2000 made a terse comment that the assessee cannot shift the burden of concealment to any other person, meaning thereby, the registered valuer. He, furthermore, made a c…

Shah Jain Associates, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 24 & 26, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 878/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri Amit Shukla, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am M/S. Shah Jain Associates, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bahadur Manjil, 2-C, 2Nd Income Tax, Central Circle 24 Floor, S. A. Brevli Road, Store & 26, Mumbai Lane, Fort, Mumbai 400 001 Pan: Aasfs 7448G Appellant .. Respondent

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143(32)Section 153Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…nding recorded by him in the assessment order that there has been concealment of income by the 4 Assessment Year: 2006-07 assessee or that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars in his return. Relied on: CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. [2000 246 ITR 568 (Delhi) (para 29) CIT M.K. Sharma [20081 307] ITR 147 (Delhi) (iii) C.I.T v. Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd [(2014) 369lTR 660 (All)] It was held that in order that the deeming fiction in sub-section (113) must apply, two requirements must be fulfilled. The first requirement is that an amount must have been added or disallowed in computing…