“satisfaction for initiation of penalty”

PenaltySection 271Section 27180 judgments

The decision most relied on for satisfaction for initiation of penalty is MAK Data (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (38 Taxmann.com 448), cited in 186 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on satisfaction for initiation of penalty

MAK Data (P.) Ltd. v. CIT

38 Taxmann.com 448 · 2013 · Supreme Court

186

citing judgments

A voluntary disclosure of income does not automatically exempt an assessee from penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). The Assessing Officer must satisfy himself about initiating penalty proceedings during the assessment, but is not required to record this satisfaction in a specific written manner.

CIT v. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills

379 ITR 521 · 2015 · Supreme Court

110

citing judgments

The assessing officer must record explicit satisfaction in the assessment order for initiating penalty proceedings under sections like 271D, 271E, 269SS, 269T, or 269ST; a mere recommendation or information to another authority is insufficient to validate the penalty.

CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd.

246 ITR 568 · 2000 · High Court

103

citing judgments

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.

Principal Commissioner of Income-tax\n(Central)-2 v. Mahesh Wood Products (P.) Ltd.

394 ITR 312 · 2017 · High Court

citing judgments

The date of initiation of penalty proceedings for the purpose of Section 275(1)(c) is when the Assessing Officer records a satisfaction or recommends penalty, not the later date when the Joint/Additional Commissioner of Income Tax issues the penalty notice.

Ms. Madhushree Gupta v. Union of India

317 ITR 107 · 2009 · High Court

citing judgments

The Delhi High Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 271(1B) of the Income-tax Act. For initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c), the Assessing Officer's satisfaction is deemed recorded if the assessment or reassessment order includes a direction for such initiation.

CIT v. S.V. Angidi Chettiar

44 ITR 739 · 1962 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

The power to impose a penalty under Section 28 (now 271(1)(c)) depends on the Assessing Officer's satisfaction about the existence of the specified conditions. This satisfaction must be recorded in the course of the assessment proceedings and before their conclusion.

Akhil Bhartiya Prathamik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust v. ADIT

5 DTR 429 · High Court

citing judgments

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.

CIT v. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills Ambala City

64 Taxmann.com 75 · 2015 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

For initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271D or 271E, the Assessing Officer must record satisfaction in the assessment order; non-recording of such satisfaction is fatal to the penalty.

Judgments citing satisfaction for initiation of penalty

Bennett, Coleman & Co Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this ground-7 of appeal is dismissed

ITA 189/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R Singh, CIT DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 144(2)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 250Section 43C

case and in law, the learned CTT (A) has erred in upholding the findings of the Ld. AO recording purported satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings against the Appellant? 4. The assessee is the flagship company of the ‘Times Group’, India’s largest media conglomerate, with operations spanning across various

Royal Remedies Pharma Healthcare, Delhi vs. Addl. CIT (A), Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3653/DEL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleasstt. Year : 2017-18 Royal Remedies Pharma Healthcare Vs. Addl. Cit(A), 2707/B, Floor 1, Sabzi Mandi, Ward 34(5), Civic Centre, Main Bazar, Delhi New Delhi (Pan: Aapfr6429R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Sangeet Bansal, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 04.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.08.2025 Order This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 17.01.2025 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A), Agra For The Assessment Year 2017- 18 On The Following Ground:- 1(A) That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.5,04,500/- Made By The Ao U/S 68 Of The I.T. Act In Respect Of Cash Deposited In Bank Account In Old Specified Bank Notes During The Period Of Demonetization Period Between 9/11/2016 To 20/11/2016. B) That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Holding That Details Of Persons/Debtors From Whom Realization Of Sale Proceeds Had Been Received In Cash, Had Not Been Produced Before The Aô Whereas

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sangeet Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 115Section 44ASection 68Section 69

assessment order in respect of addition of Rs.5,04,500/- and Rs.2,00,000/- without recording proper satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings. 5 | P a g e 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs. 29,05,320/- in its bank accounts

M/S Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 310/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80

have been initiated separately.” From the above it is clear that AO has not recorded any satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings in respect of disallowance of CSR expenses. Therefore penalty imposed on disallowance of CSR expenses is uncalled for. Reliance in this connection is placed on the following cases ... assessment order, no penalty proceedings has been imitated with reference to this disallowance and therefore when AO has not recorded any satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings in respect of RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR disallowance of CSR expenses, the penalty imposed

M/S Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated

ITA 309/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80

have been initiated separately." From the above it is clear that AO has not recorded any satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings in respect of disallowance of CSR expenses. Therefore penalty imposed on disallowance of CSR expenses is uncalled for. Reliance in this connection is placed on the following cases ... assessment order, no penalty proceedings has been imitated with reference to this disallowance and therefore when AO has not recorded any satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings in respect of 17 RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR ITA NO.309 & 310/JPR/2025 disallowance of CSR expenses

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Manipal Hospitals (Bangalore) Private Limited, Bengaluru

In the result appeal of the Ld

ITA 959/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Hon’Ble & Shri Soundararajan K, Hon’Bledcit – Central Circle – 1(2) Vs. M/S. Manipal Hospitals Room No. 307, 3Rdfloor. (Bangalore) Private Limited C.R. Building, Queens Road 98/2, The Annex Bengaluru – 560001 Ruso Bagh Karnataka Off. Hal Airport Road Bengaluru – 560017 Karnataka Pan: Aaccv9562D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By: Sri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Department Represented By: Smt Prajakta Thakur, Jcit Date Of Hearing:09.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.07.2025 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi: 1. Captioned Appeal Is Filed By Dcit – Central Circle – 1(2), Bengaluru Against The Appellate Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Bengaluru (“The Ld.Cit(A)”) Dated 28.02.2025 Wherein The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Penalty Order Dated 25.03.2022 Passed By Dcit – Central

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

material available on record have been carefully perused. It is noticed that in the assessment order, the AO has not recorded any satisfaction for initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). It is seen that there is a mere mention as "Issue penalty notice u/s.271

M/S Karia Builders, Pune vs. ITO Ward 14(3), Pune

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

ITA 2401/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Karia Builders Ito, Ward 14(3), Pune 402, Konark Indrayu, Kondhwa, Vs. Pune – 411048 Pan: Aadfk5220B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanket M Joshi Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 17-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23-07-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 147Section 148Section 269SSection 271DSection 274Section 275(1)Section 296S

assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), the Ld. AO has not recorded any satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271D of the Act and hence, the penalty levied of Rs.1,00,00,000 u/s 271D

Chaitali Hotels, Kolhapur vs. CIT(A)-11, Pune

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

ITA 1846/PUN/2024[AY-2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 Chaitali Hotels Cit(A)-11, Pune 257, Kadamwadi Road, Vs. Kolhapur – 416005 Pan: Aagfc8348F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 04-06-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-06-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 271ASection 274Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

penalty proceedings, is required to initiate the penalty proceedings and only that authority can levy the penalty. In the present case, the satisfaction for initiation of penalty u/s 270A, with regard to the amount of Rs.5,06,267/- was of the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, levy of penalty u/s 270A

Ila Jitendra Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5219/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Ganatra, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 133Section 139(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

separate connotations. 32. On the aforesaid analyzations, we are of the considered view that where there is confusion in recording the satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings or issuing the notice u/s 274 of the Act or levy of penalty, on the limb for which no satisfaction was recorded ... deleted. Thus, the question posed, is answered accordingly. 33. Coming to the instant case, admittedly the AO had recorded the satisfaction and initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1){c} of the Act qua concealment of income, however issued notice dated 31.12.2016 u/s 271(1){c} read with section

Vikas Vijay Gupta, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby

ITA 404/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President\nAnd Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member\nITA No. 404/Ahd/2024\nAssessment Year 2017-18\nVikas Vijay Gupta\nPrincipal Commissioner\n604 Sarap,\nof Income Tax,\nOpp. Navjivan Press Vs Ahmedabad-1,\nP.O. Navjivan,\nAhmedabad\nAhmedabad-380014,\nGujarat\n(Respondent)\nPAN: AEOPG6723L\n(Appellant)\nAssessee Represented: Shri Jaimin Shah, A.R.\nRevenue Represented: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT-DR\nDate of hearing : 27-02-2025\nDate of pronouncement : 27-05-2025\nआदे

Section 115BSection 147Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 69A

applicable to the present case, since in that case in the assessment order, the Ld. A.O. has not recorded the satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings. In that circumstances, the Chennai Tribunal held that Revision proceedings cannot be invoked, solely for the reasons that penalty proceedings initiated on a wrong

Yadagiri Tattari, Hyderabad vs. JCIT., Range-15, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 474/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Shri D. Praveen, Sr. AR

Section 269Section 269SSection 271Section 271D

case 13 ITA.No.474/Hyd./2024 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court during original assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer has recorded satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings. However, during subsequent proceedings in pursuance to the directions of the Tribunal, the Assessing Officer has failed to record satisfaction in order to initiate ... penalty proceedings. Therefore, under those facts, the Hon’ble Supreme Court came to the conclusion that, in absence of required satisfaction before initiation of penalty proceedings u/sec.271D of the Act, the order passed imposing penalty u/sec.271D is invalid. In the present case, since there is no assessment proceedings

Singanamala Sarala, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 200/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, C.AFor Respondent: : Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 263Section 269S

Consequently, the Ld. PCIT exercised his jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act and directed the Ld. AO to record his satisfaction for initiation of penalty u/s.271D of the Act. The first argument of the assessee before us is that, the Ld. PCIT has no power u/s.263 of the Act to issue ... direction to Ld. AO to record satisfaction. The Ld. AR argued that, the Ld. PCIT himself should have record satisfaction and initiate the penalty proceedings. In support of their submission, the Ld. AR relied on the decision of co-ordinate bench of ITAT in the case of Sri Adithya Homes

Subramanyan Harikumar, Palkkad vs. JCIT, Palakkad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 711/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Subramanyan Harikumar .......... Appellant 29/58-4, 42/409-I, Mania, M.G. Road Karnaki Nagar, Palakkad 678001 [Pan: Achph7765A] Vs. Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent Aayakar Bhavan, English Church Road Palakkad 678014 Appellant By: Smt. Divya Ravindran, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.03.2025

For Appellant: Smt. Divya Ravindran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271D

coordinate bench in the case Bhaskar Thattaruthodiyil in ITA No. 754/Coch/2023 dated 25.09.2024. She further submits that the AO only recorded his satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271D of the Act and not the Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax. Therefor the penalty order is vitiated

Archana Prashant Date, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 11(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2472/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2472/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Sarang GudhateFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

dated 03.08.2022 mentions that penalty initiated is for concealment of particulars of income. Thus, according to the appellant the satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceeding are inadequate. This contention however cannot be accepted because the satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings are recorded in the assessment order and notices

Unni Krishnan Vadakkedath Sugathan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 4 (3)(1), Bandra

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 3604/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kirit MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 17Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 90Section 90A

struck off. On the aforesaid analyzations, we are of the considered view that where there is confusion in recording the satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings or issuing the notice u/s 274 of the Act or levy of penalty on the limb for which no satisfaction was recorded

Infoanalytica Consulting Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the penalty u/s

ITA 1592/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(2)Section 270A(8)Section 270A(9)Section 40

Employees Contribution to PF & ESI. ii. Disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act of s.68,277/- Accordingly, the AO has recorded satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s.270A of the Act, for “under-reporting of income which is in consequences of mis-reporting of income”. In the penalty proceedings, after

Anil Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Jaipur

8. In view of the above findings, this appeal is hereby allowed and the impugned order passed by Learned CIT(A), NFAC upholding the penalty order u/s 271E of the Act, is hereby set aside

ITA 1480/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: This Appellate Tribunal, Feeling Aggrieved By Order Dated 15.10.2024, Passed By Learned Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi. The Matter Pertains To The Assessment Year 2014-15. Vide Impugned Order, Penalty Imposed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271E Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) Has Been Upheld.

For Appellant: Sh. Naman Maloo, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 234Section 234ASection 234DSection 244ASection 269Section 269TSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

recorded before passing the penalty order, which has been upheld by Ld. CIT(A). Further, it has been contended that while recording satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings, in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer nowhere recorded satisfaction that penalty proceeding u/s 271E of the Act were also going

Malcolm Darayes Pestonji, Vasai, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Thane, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3431/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana (Sr. DR)

Section 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 274

initiate penalty proceedings and only that authority can levy the penalty. He went on to hold that in the present case, the satisfaction for initiation of penalty u/s 270A with regard to the amount of Rs 47,89,785/- was of Commissioner of Appeals. Therefore, penalty u/s 270A corresponding

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Thapar Homer Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6423/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishradcit, Central Circle- M/S. Thapar Homes 15 Limited, B-10, Vs Shivalik, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi- 110017 Pan No:Aaecm0840R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 269TSection 271ESection 274Section 275

been called for and examined in order to verify the claim of the appellant on the following issues:- i. Recording of satisfaction for initiation of penalty u/s 271E by the AO in the assessment order. ii. Issue of penalty show cause notice dated 31.12.2010 u/s 274 read with section 271E

Amruta Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The PCIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1111/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1110, 1111 & 1112/Ahd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2017-18) बनाम/ Amruta Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. The Pr. Cit 199, New Cloth Market, Ahmedabad-1 Vs. Opp. Raipur Darwaja, Sarangpur, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380002 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaica0877A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Ms. Astha Maniar, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit. Dr 18/09/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 21/10/2024

For Appellant: Ms. Astha Maniar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT. DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

revisional power u/s.263 of the Act to direct the AO to initiate penalty proceeding once assessment proceedings are completed. Further that the satisfaction for initiation of penalty has to be recorded by the AO and the PCIT cannot record such satisfaction on behalf of the AO. In the present case ... case where the Ld. PCIT is substituting his satisfaction over the satisfaction of the AO. The AO had already recorded his satisfaction and initiated the penalty proceeding u/s.270A of the Act, which was found to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue as no penalty u/s.270A

Amruta Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The PCIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1110/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Ms. Astha Maniar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT. DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263