9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Appeal u/s 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2000-01.
In this case, the High Court of Delhi considered an appeal u/s 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 where the revenue challenged an order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2000-01. The main issue was whether the Assessing Officer had validly recorded satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings against the assessee. Upon review, the Court found that there was no indication that the Assessing Officer was satisfied that the assessee had concealed income, furnished inaccurate particulars, or failed to comply with any notice. The penalty order was passed only u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, without proper satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer for initiating penalty proceedings. Furthermore, the Court examined the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal regarding the classification of rental income as 'Income from house property' or 'Business income'. The CIT(A) had held that since two views were possible and there was no clear inference, it could not be concluded that the assessee had concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal upheld this finding, and the Court agreed that no interference was warranted with their concurrent decisions. Ultimately, the Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose from the case and dismissed the appeal.
|
