2007 (9) TMI 259 - HC - Income Tax

Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Revenue submits that the assessment order indicates the satisfaction of the AO regarding the concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars by the assessee - recording by the AO in the last part of the assessment order satisfies the requirement of the law - AO has also made a note of the failure on the part of the assessee to explain the source of credits in her bank account and that she adduced no evidence to support the genuine-ness of such credits revenue appeal allowed

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 challenging penalty under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

Analysis:
1. The Revenue appealed against the Tribunal's order canceling the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act for not recording satisfaction regarding concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal relied on the decision in CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd.

2. The substantial question of law framed was whether the Tribunal erred in canceling the penalty despite the endorsement in the assessment order initiating penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars. The court noted the approval of the view in Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. by the Supreme Court in Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint CIT and T. Ashok Pai v. CIT.

3. The Assessing Officer's assessment order indicated the initiation of penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Revenue argued that this satisfied the requirement of law, contrary to the assessee's claim that no inaccurate particulars were furnished.

4. The court held that the Assessing Officer's recording in the assessment order fulfilled the requirement for initiating penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars. The court also noted the failure of the assessee to explain the source of credits in the bank account, supporting the initiation of penalty proceedings.

5. The court found the Tribunal erred in concluding that the Assessing Officer did not record satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings, contrary to the facts. The Tribunal should have decided the issue on its merits, leading to the answer in the negative, favoring the Revenue.

6. Consequently, the court set aside the Tribunal's order and remitted the matter for a decision on the merits. The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal for further directions on the hearing of the appeal. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.