2015 (7) TMI 1363

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... IGH COURT ] . Therefore, in our considered opinion, this is not a fit case for levy of penalty because the part of the disallowance was confirmed on estimated basis. For the sake of completeness, a perusal of the assessment order shows that the impugned addition has been made by the AO at para-9 of his order. Admittedly, no satisfaction has been recorded for the initiation of the penalty proceedings whereas in respect of every disallowance made. The AO has specifically mentioned that penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are initiated separately. Since there is nothing to show that AO had recorded his satisfaction as required by the statute for initiation of penalty proceedings. Therefore, order levying penalty cannot be sustained.- Decided in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tinued to state that even otherwise the AO has not recorded any satisfaction while making the disallowance of ₹ 52, 02,936/-. In support of his contention, the Ld. Counsel relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CIT Vs Triveni Engineering Industries Ltd. in ITA No. 5709/Del/2010. 5. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative strongly supported the orders of the Revenue authorities. 6. We have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below. We have also considered the decisions relied upon by the assessee. The relevant part of the Tribunal s order read as under: After considering the facts and the submissions and the material evidences brought on record, no doubt these expenses do pertain to the business act .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... atisfaction has been recorded for the initiation of the penalty proceedings whereas in respect of every disallowance made. The AO has specifically mentioned that penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are initiated separately. Since there is nothing to show that AO had recorded his satisfaction as required by the statute for initiation of penalty proceedings. Therefore, order levying penalty cannot be sustained. For this proposition, we rely upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Triveni Engineering (supra). Considering the above in totality, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the penalty so levied. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court at th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X