9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 1035X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ck to the assessing officer, all the powers of an original assessing officer gets vested by operation of law. In such proceedings, if the assessing officer expresses his satisfaction that penalty proceedings can be initiated, the same is, in my considered view, within his jurisdiction and authority. The satisfaction recorded by the assessing officer in Ext.P3 that proceedings for penalty must be initiated under section 271(1)(c) is clearly within his jurisdiction, despite the fact that the original assessment order did not mention anything about initiating penalty proceedings. Ext.P3 assessment order issued after remand, is a proceeding under this Act and satisfies the ingredients of section 271(1)(c) and hence, the assessing officer was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the contention that the entire exercise that resulted in the impugned order was one without jurisdiction. 2. Petitioner is an assessee under the Act and carries on its business of quarrying and sale of rock aggregates. For the assessment year 2014-15, the revised return filed by the petitioner was accepted and the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 27.12.2016. Subsequently, in exercise of the powers under section 263 of the Act, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kottayam, called for and examined the proceedings that resulted in the assessment order and found the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Therefore, the assessment order was set aside and remanded to the assessi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax v. J.K.D's Costa [(1982) 133 ITR 7 (Del.) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Keshrimal Parasmal [(1986 157 ITR 484 (Raj.)], Commissioner of Income Tax v. C.R.K. Swamy [(2002) 254 ITR 158 (Mad.)] Commissioner of Income Tax v. Parmanand M.Patel [(2005) 278 ITR 3 (Guj.)] Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana v. Rakesh Nain Trivedi [(2016) 282 CTR 205 (Punjab Haryana)]. 4. Sri. Jose Joseph, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, submitted that the order assailed in this writ petition can be the subject matter of an appeal and hence the petitioner has an efficacious and alternative remedy under the statute and also that recourse to Article 226 of the Constitution was not warranted. He further s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... during the course of survey some incriminating material/document were found the same were seized. These books/documents were never confronted by the Assessing Officer to assessee at the time of assessment proceedings though it was survey assessment. Whatever books of account were produced by the assessee were accepted on their face value without any observations regarding impounded books of account/document in this case by the Assessing Officer. 8. Finally, in the concluding two paragraphs, the following are observed: The main issue of non-examination of impounded books of account with reference to the return of income filed, is apparent from records as discussed above. After detailed discussion as per order sheet entry dated 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment, wherein he has expressed his satisfaction that this is a fit case where penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, for concealment of income, ought to be initiated. As a consequence of the said satisfaction expressed in Ext.P3 assessment order, the notice of penalty was issued as Ext.P4. Thereafter Ext.P6 order was issued imposing a penalty upon the petitioner. 11. Since I have already held that Ext.P2 order was an open remand, I find that the assessing officer, while issuing Ext.P3 order of assessment, was vested with all the powers including the jurisdiction to express his satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings, as has been held in Commissioner of Income Tax and Others v. S.V.Angidi Chettiar (AIR 1962 SC 970). In th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessing officer was vested with the jurisdiction to record his satisfaction and thereafter initiate penalty proceedings. 14. The decisions in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Super Metal Re-Rollers (P) Ltd. [(2004) 265 ITR 82 (Del.)], Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax v. J.K.D's Costa [(1982) 133 ITR 7 (Del.) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Keshrimal Parasmal [(1986 157 ITR 484 (Raj.)], Commissioner of Income Tax v. C.R.K. Swamy [(2002) 254 ITR 158 (Mad.)] Commissioner of Income Tax v. Parmanand M.Patel [(2005) 278 ITR 3 (Guj.)] Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana v. Rakesh Nain Trivedi [(2016) 282 CTR 205 (Punjab Haryana)] are all cases where the assessment order had not recorded the satisfaction for initiating penalty proce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
