9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 648X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f penalty proceedings us 271D of the Act and no penalty could be levied if the AO failed to record such satisfaction in the assessment order. In the present case, on perusal of the assessment order u/s 143(3) it is seen that no such satisfaction has been recorded by the AO in the said assessment order. Hence, having regard to the failure of the AO to record his satisfaction in the assessment order with regard to the violation of the provisions of Sec. 269SS, it is held that the penalty proceedings u/s. 271D of the Act have not been validly initiated and consequently, the penalty order passed by the Addl. CIT is held to be bad in Law. Decided against revenue. - Shri Aby T. Varkey, Judicial Member And Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Accountant Member ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 27.12.2017, is contrary to law and thus void ab-initio, as declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs M/s. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills? For the above additional ground and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, with kind permission, respondent most humbly submit and pray that the Hon'ble Bench may kindly be pleased to dismiss the subject Appeal filed by the revenue and thus uphold impugned order 07.06.2023 in the interest of justice. 3. The brief facts of the case are that assessee company was incorporated on 05.08.2010 to manufacture steel ingots and had filed its Return of income (RoI) for AY 2015-16 on 22.09.2015 admitting total loss of Rs. 19,58,84,351/- which RoI was later selected for complete ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by order dated 18.07.2018 which action of the Addl.CIT has been deleted by the Ld.CIT(A) by holding that there was no justification to invoke provisions of Sec.269SS of the Act based on the facts of the case. 4. Aggrieved the aforesaid action of the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC, the Revenue has preferred this appeal and in support of the action of the impugned order, the assessee has filed Cross-Objection and has raised the legal issue as noted supra. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the assessment order has been framed by the AO vide order dated 27.12.2017 u/s. 143(3) of the Act by accepting the return filed by the assessee company [refer to Page No.3-4 of the Paper Book]. 6. The assessee as n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ein, the Hon ble Apex Court while examining similar contention/legal issue of levy of penalty u/s. 271E which is pari materia to sec.271D of the Act held as under: No penalty u/s 271E could be levied in the absence of recording of satisfaction by the AO in the assessment order. The relevant portion of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is reproduced as under: 5. As pointed out above, insofar as, fresh assessment order is concerned, there was no satisfaction recorded regarding penalty proceeding under Section 27 JE of the Act, though in that order the Assessing Officer wanted penalty proceeding to be initiated under Section 271 (l)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E is concerned, it was without any satisfac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e original assessment order with a direction to frame assessment de nova. In the fresh assessment order, no satisfaction was recorded by the assessing officer regarding initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271 E of the Act. It was noticed that the penalty order was passed before the appeal of the assessee was allowed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). It was in that context that Supreme Court held as follows: The Tribunal as well as the High Court has held that it could not be so for the simple reason that when the original assessment order itself was set aside, the satisfaction recorded therein for the purpose of initiation of the penalty proceeding under Section 271E would also not survive. This according to us is the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecision of the Supreme Court in CIT V. Mac Data Ltd. wherein it was observed that assessing officer has to satisfy himself as to whether penalty proceedings should be initiated or not. Assessing officer is not required to record his satisfaction in a particular manner or reduce it into writing. Therefore, respondent No. 1 imposed the penalty under Section 271D of the Act. 25. We are afraid respondent No. I had completely overlooked the decision of the Supreme Court in Jai Laxmi Rice Mills Ambala City (1 supra). In the said decision as extracted above, Supreme Court had concurred with the view taken by the High Court holding that satisfaction must be recorded in the original assessment order for the purpose of initiation of penalty proceedin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
