← All Phrases

“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
86
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
75
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
52
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
50
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
49
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

DCIT, Centralcircle-2(2), Chennai vs. Subramaniam Thanu, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

ITA 788/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

For Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 271E

with a direction to frame assessment de novo - After remand, Assessing Officer passed fresh assessment order but in said assessment order, no satisfaction regarding initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271E was recorded - Tribunal as well as High Court held that when original assessment order itself was set aside, satisfaction ... thereby setting aside the assessment order itself. After remand, the Assessing Office passed afresh assessment order but in this assessment order, no satisfaction regarding initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271D of the Act was recorded. The Tribunal as well as the High Court held that the penalty order passed

DCIT, Centralcircle-2(2), Chennai vs. Subramaniam Thanu, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

ITA 787/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

For Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 271E

with a direction to frame assessment de novo - After remand, Assessing Officer passed fresh assessment order but in said assessment order, no satisfaction regarding initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271E was recorded - Tribunal as well as High Court held that when original assessment order itself was set aside, satisfaction ... thereby setting aside the assessment order itself. After remand, the Assessing Office passed afresh assessment order but in this assessment order, no satisfaction regarding initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271D of the Act was recorded. The Tribunal as well as the High Court held that the penalty order passed

DCIT, Centralcircle-2(2), Chennai vs. Subramaniam Thanu, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

ITA 786/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

For Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 271E

with a direction to frame assessment de novo - After remand, Assessing Officer passed fresh assessment order but in said assessment order, no satisfaction regarding initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271E was recorded - Tribunal as well as High Court held that when original assessment order itself was set aside, satisfaction ... thereby setting aside the assessment order itself. After remand, the Assessing Office passed afresh assessment order but in this assessment order, no satisfaction regarding initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271D of the Act was recorded. The Tribunal as well as the High Court held that the penalty order passed

DCIT, Centralcircle-2(2), Chennai vs. Subramaniam Thanu, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

ITA 785/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

For Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 269SSection 269TSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 271E

with a direction to frame assessment de novo - After remand, Assessing Officer passed fresh assessment order but in said assessment order, no satisfaction regarding initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271E was recorded - Tribunal as well as High Court held that when original assessment order itself was set aside, satisfaction ... thereby setting aside the assessment order itself. After remand, the Assessing Office passed afresh assessment order but in this assessment order, no satisfaction regarding initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271D of the Act was recorded. The Tribunal as well as the High Court held that the penalty order passed

Deepak Kumar Rajoria, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Bikaner

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 170/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur11 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Assessing Authority Tax Was Paid & Adjust From Tds The Appellant Was Aware Of The Fact That There Is Any Form By Filing Which The Penalty May Be Dropped So The Penalty Was Never Leviable In This Case Therefore The Penalty U/S 270A May Please Be Cancelled. 3. The Appellant Prays For Justice & Relief. 4. The Appellant May Please Be Permitted To Raise Any Addition Or Alternative Ground At Or Before The Hearing.”

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 271(1)(C)Section 274Section 80G

every word in the sentence for Initiation of penalty is crucial. Hence, the assessing officers must stop. think and ponder before recording satisfaction for initiation of penalty. As reproduced above, Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory held that notice under Section

Savita Bansal, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-35(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8937/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mathur, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rajareswari R, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 54FSection 68

Section 271(1)(c) has to be read in consonance of Section 271(1B). The presence of prima facie satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings was and remains a jurisdictional fact which cannot be wished away as the provision stands even today, i.e., post amendment. If an interpretation such

A2Z Infra Engineering Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT- Central Circle-2, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 943/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

Section 271(1)(c) has to be read in consonance of Section 271(1B). The presence of prima facie satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings was and remains a jurisdictional fact which cannot be wished away as the provision stands even today, i.e., post amendment. If an interpretation such

Infra Engineers Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, CC-2, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 942/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

Section 271(1)(c) has to be read in consonance of Section 271(1B). The presence of prima facie satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings was and remains a jurisdictional fact which cannot be wished away as the provision stands even today, i.e., post amendment. If an interpretation such

A2Z Infra Engineering Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT- Central Circle-2, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 941/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

Section 271(1)(c) has to be read in consonance of Section 271(1B). The presence of prima facie satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings was and remains a jurisdictional fact which cannot be wished away as the provision stands even today, i.e., post amendment. If an interpretation such

A2Z Infra Engineering Limited, Gurgaon vs. CCIT- Central Circle-2, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 940/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

Section 271(1)(c) has to be read in consonance of Section 271(1B). The presence of prima facie satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings was and remains a jurisdictional fact which cannot be wished away as the provision stands even today, i.e., post amendment. If an interpretation such

A2Z Infra Engineering Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT CC-2, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 939/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

Section 271(1)(c) has to be read in consonance of Section 271(1B). The presence of prima facie satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings was and remains a jurisdictional fact which cannot be wished away as the provision stands even today, i.e., post amendment. If an interpretation such

DCIT-Central Circle-2, Faridabad vs. A2Z Infra Engineers Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 812/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

Section 271(1)(c) has to be read in consonance of Section 271(1B). The presence of prima facie satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings was and remains a jurisdictional fact which cannot be wished away as the provision stands even today, i.e., post amendment. If an interpretation such

DCIT CC-2, Faridabad vs. A2Z Maintenance and Engineering Services Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 811/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

Section 271(1)(c) has to be read in consonance of Section 271(1B). The presence of prima facie satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings was and remains a jurisdictional fact which cannot be wished away as the provision stands even today, i.e., post amendment. If an interpretation such

A2Z Maintenance & Engineering Services Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Central Circle-II, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2631/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

Section 271(1)(c) has to be read in consonance of Section 271(1B). The presence of prima facie satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings was and remains a jurisdictional fact which cannot be wished away as the provision stands even today, i.e., post amendment. If an interpretation such

K World Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 8, New Delhi

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

ITA 2523/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms. Sanjana Sachdev, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, Ld. CIT/DR
Section 153ASection 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

dated 30.03.2015 u/s. 153A/143(3) of the Act. On the basis of said addition Rs.35,00,000/-, the Assessing Officer recorded his satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Accordingly, after relying upon various decisions, the Assessing Officer

Sahdev Jewellers, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-51(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands

ITA 1432/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Saxena, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Dohre, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

three orders i.e. Assessment order, Penalty order and the Impugned order under are not in sync with each other qua satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings, initiation of penalty proceedings and levy of penalty and affirmation thereof by the Ld. Commissioner. We observe specifically from the satisfaction recorded

ACIT Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6971/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 153ASection 271(1)

sustained. Ld. CIT(A) recorded a finding that an examination of assessment order reveals that the learned Assessing Officer duly reached the satisfaction for initiation of penalty by applying the mind, which could be inferred from the assessment order itself. Ld. CIT(A) further noted that the notice issued

Shri Krishna Jewels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 25, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

ITA 6758/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: FixedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year : 2013-14

Section 271(1)(c)

ground that the assessee has not shown any fixed assets in the balance sheet. The Assessing Officer has also recorded his satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for both these additions in para 11 and 12 as under:- “11. In view of the above discussion

Kissan Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Circle- 1, Ghaziabad

ITA 6983/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Farhat Khan, Senior DR
Section 143Section 2Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 50C

paras, the entire penalty proceedings are vitiated and not sustainable in the eyes of law. Not only this, AO while recording the satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings stated that he has furnished inaccurate particulars of income whereas he has levied the penalty for concealment of particulars of income

M/S. Singh Consultancy Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3061/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. S.K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

assessee. The order doesn’t indicate any specific default of sec 271(1)(c) attributed to the assessee although there is general satisfaction of initiation of penalty proceedings in para 3.1 thereof. Referring to the copy to penalty order, he submitted that the Assessing Officer while levying penalty records satisfaction ... submitted that Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that the presence of prima facie satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings was and remains a jurisdictional fact which cannot be wished away as the provision stands even today, i.e post amendment. Relying on various other decisions