Dr.Syamal Baran Mondal v. CIT

244 CTR 631High Court2011#453 most cited

What is Dr.Syamal Baran Mondal v. CIT authority for?

The Assessing Officer's satisfaction for levying penalty under Section 271 does not need to be recorded in specific terms or words, but must be evident from the order through express language or overt actions.

202

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2021.

Also referred to as

Dr. Syamal Baran Mondal v. CIT · Section 271 · Section 274 · recording of satisfaction · Assessing Officer satisfaction · concealment of income penalty · furnishing inaccurate particulars · specific terms satisfaction · overt act satisfaction · defect in notice

Judgments citing Dr.Syamal Baran Mondal v. CIT

ITO, Ward - 13(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Ambey Retailers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2104/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 Income Tax Officer V/S. M/S Ambey Retailers Pvt. Ward-13(1), 9Th Ltd. 29B, Rabidra Sarani, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-73 Floor, 110, Shanti Pally, Aayakar [Pan No.Aahca 8700 F] Bhawan (Poorva), Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri R. Chowdhury, Addl. Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant None ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 13-08-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 05-09-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Challenges Correctness Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Kolkata’S Order Dated 03.07.2017, Passed In Case No.472/Cit(A)-5/W-15(1)/15-16, Reversing The Assessing Officer’S Action Deleting Imposing Penalty Of ₹50,21,837/- Involving Proceedings U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. 2. We Have Heard Learned Departmental Representative Arguing In Favour The Above Impugned Penalty. Case File Perused. It Emerges First Of All That Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion On The Issue Reads As Under:- “1. By Way Of Additional Ground The Objection Raised Is That The Ao Failed To Strike Off The Irrelevant Portion In The Notice Initiating Penalty U/S 271(1)(C)/ Section 274. Relying On The Decision Of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory & Others [2013] 359 Itr

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…soning of the in its order dt:01-12-2017 of Coordinate Bench in the case of Jeetmal Choraria and the same is reproduced for ready reference: “7. The learned DR submitted that the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Dr.Syamal Baran Mondal Vs. CIT (2011) 244 CTR 631 (Cal) has taken a view that Sec.271 does not mandate that the recording of satisfaction about concealment of income must be in specific terms and words and that satisfaction of AO must reflect from the order either with expressed words recorded by the AO or by his overt act and action. In our view this decision is on the question of recording sat…

Sri Supratik Banerjee, Birbhum vs. ACIT, Circle - 3, Suri, Birbhum

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 650/KOL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: The Cit-A The Notice Dt. 29-12-2009 Issued By The Ao [Acit, Cir-3, Suri] U/Sec 274 R.W.S 271(1) ( C) Of The Act Is Defective For Not Mentioning The Specific Charge & Placed Reliance On The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Ssa’S Emerald Meadows. The Cit-A Without Considering The Same Confirmed The Penalty Imposed By The Ao U/S. 271(1) ( C ) Of The Act By Placing Reliance On The Decisions Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Cases Of Mak Data (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.18389 Of 2013) & Dharmendra Textiles Reported In (2008) 306 Itr 277(Sc).

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl.CIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…n its order dt: 01-12-2017 in the case of Jeetmal Choraria and the same is reproduced herein below for ready reference: 3 Supratik Banerjee “7. The learned DR submitted that the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Dr.Syamal Baran Mondal Vs. CIT (2011) 244 CTR 631 (Cal) has taken a view that Sec.271 does not mandate that the recording of satisfaction about concealment of income must be in specific terms and words and that satisfaction of AO must reflect from the order either with expressed words recorded by the AO or by his overt act and action. In our view this decision is on the question of recording sat…

Shri Laxmi Kant Todi, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 35(3), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 1509/KOL/2017[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jul 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: The Cit-A The Notice Dt. 30-06-2014 Issued By The Ao U/Sec 274 Of The Act Is Defective For Not Mentioning The Specific Charge & Placed Reliance On The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Ssa’S Emerald Meadows. The Cit-A Without Considering The Same Confirmed The Penalty Imposed By The Ao U/S. 271(1) ( C ) Of The Act By Placing Reliance On The Decisions Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Cases Of Mak Data (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.18389 Of 2013) & Dharmendra Textiles Reported In (2008) 306 Itr 277(Sc).

For Appellant: Ms. Pinki Shaw, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri A.Bhattacharjee, Addl.CIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…e Co-ordinate Bench in its order dt: 01-12-2017 in the case of Jeetmal Choraria and the same is reproduced herein below for ready reference: “7. The learned DR submitted that the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Dr.Syamal Baran Mondal Vs. CIT (2011) 244 CTR 631 (Cal) has taken a view that Sec.271 does not mandate that the recording of satisfaction about concealment of income must be in specific terms and words and that satisfaction of AO must reflect from the order either with expressed words recorded by the AO or by his overt act and action. In our view this decision is on the question of recording sat…