2005 (5) TMI 16 - HC - Income Tax

(i) Whether Tribunal has erred in sustaining the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the case of the appellant for the assessment year 1992-93 inasmuch as the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer as contemplated in section 271(1)(c) of the Act was not recorded in the present case? - we would answer the question of law in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee holding that the impugned order dated October 20 2003 in so far as it relates to initiation of penalty proceedings is liable to be set aside

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Violation of sections 269SS and 269T of the Income-tax Act.
2. Initiation and imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
3. Satisfaction of the Assessing Officer as required under section 271(1)(c) for initiating penalty proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Violation of Sections 269SS and 269T:
The Assessing Officer noted violations of sections 269SS and 269T by the assessee, which pertain to the acceptance and repayment of loans or deposits otherwise than by an account payee cheque or bank draft. The scrutiny of the assessee's return led to the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) due to these violations.

2. Initiation and Imposition of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c):
The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) based on the finding that the assessee had concealed particulars of income. The assessee had surrendered a sum of Rs. 12.75 lakhs during the assessment, claiming it was done to avoid further litigation and for peace of mind. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the penalty, stating that the loan creditors were non-existent and the genuineness of the loans unverifiable.

3. Satisfaction of the Assessing Officer:
The core issue was whether the Assessing Officer recorded the necessary satisfaction as required under section 271(1)(c) before initiating penalty proceedings. The court found that the Assessing Officer did not properly apply his mind and that the initiation of penalty proceedings was based on a note that indicated the proceedings were used as a threat to ensure tax payment. The note stated that penalty proceedings were initiated as a safeguard against default in tax payment, which the court found unjust and contrary to the scheme of the Act.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) was not based on a proper application of mind and was used coercively to recover taxes. The satisfaction required under section 271(1)(c) was not properly recorded, rendering the penalty proceedings void. The court set aside the impugned order related to the initiation of penalty proceedings, answering the question of law in favor of the assessee.