2017 (3) TMI 1824 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271E - Non recording of satisfaction regarding initiation of penalty proceedings - HELD THAT - Assessment Order there is no mention about initiation of any penalty proceedings in connection with the impugned penalty. In this view of the matter and respectfully following case of CIT vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills 2015 (11) TMI 1453 - SUPREME COURT delete the impugned penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to penalty imposed under section 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2010-11.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged the correctness of the penalty imposed by the CIT(A) under section 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant argued that as per the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of CIT vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills, the recording of satisfaction regarding the initiation of penalty proceedings is a prerequisite for imposing such penalty. It was highlighted that in the present case, no such satisfaction had been recorded. The Departmental Representative did not dispute this fact but contended that it is not a statutory requirement to mention the initiation of penalty proceedings in the Assessment Order. However, the Tribunal noted that the Assessment Order did not mention anything about the initiation of penalty proceedings related to the impugned penalty. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of CIT vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills, the Tribunal decided to delete the penalty due to the absence of recorded satisfaction regarding the initiation of penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal carefully considered the arguments presented by both parties, reviewed the material on record, and analyzed the legal position applicable to the case. It was observed that the Assessment Order did not contain any reference to the initiation of penalty proceedings concerning the penalty in question. Relying on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills, the Tribunal concluded that the absence of recorded satisfaction regarding the initiation of penalty proceedings warranted the deletion of the impugned penalty. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, and the impugned penalty was deleted. The decision was pronounced in an open court on the 21st day of March 2017.