9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 671X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 961 ('Act'), the revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 8-8-2005 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C' in ITA Nos. 2425 and 2426/Delhi/2005 relevant for the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97 respectively. 2. By the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the assessee challenging the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for both years. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this decision has been approved by the Supreme Court in Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint CIT [2007] 291 ITR 5192 (SC) and T. Ashok Pai v. CIT [2007] 292 ITR 113 (SC). 6. Mr. J.R. Goel learned senior standing counsel for the revenue makes an alternative submission that another Bench of this Court has in CIT v. Indus Valley Promoters Ltd. [2006] 155 Taxman 223 referred the following substantial question of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act is discernible from the assessment order itself and that such satisfaction need not be separately or expressly indicated in the assessment order. In that event the assessment order in the present case would have to be examined to find out if the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer is discernible. Therefore, without expressing any view on the issue pending consideration by the larger Ben ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... discern if any satisfaction has been recorded by the Assessing Officer for initiating the penalty proceedings. 11. Learned counsel for the assessee has drawn our attention to an order dated 12-5-2005 passed by the Tribunal in ITA No. 93 (Delhi) of 2005 for the assessment year 1994-95 in which the penalty levied against the assessee under section 271(1)(c) has been cancelled. It has been noticed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
