COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Vs. KRISHNA MARUTI LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 260A of the Income -tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') is directed against the order dated April 18, 2006, passed by the Income -tax Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal') Delhi Bench 'E', New Delhi, in I.T.A. No. 3551/Del./2002 for the assessment year 1995 -96. By the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee challenging the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The penalty was set aside by the Tribunal on the ground that the Assessing Officer had not recorded any satisfaction in the assessment order that there was either concealment of income or inaccurate particulars furnished by the assessee.

(2.) MS . Prem Lata Bansal, learned senior standing counsel for the Revenue submits that in CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. : [2000]246ITR568(Delhi) this Court has taken the view that if the Assessing Officer does not record his satisfaction in the assessment order that penalty proceedings should be initiated against the assessee the subsequent order levying penalty would be bad in law. However, she says that another Bench of this Court has in CIT v. Indus Valley Promoters Ltd. : [2008]307ITR142(Delhi) , referred the following substantial question of law to a larger Bench which according to the referring Bench was not considered in CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. : [2000]246ITR568(Delhi) : Whether satisfaction of the officer initiating the proceedings under Section 271 of the Income -tax Act can be said to have been recorded even in cases where satisfaction is not recorded in specific terms but is otherwise discernible from order passed by the authority

(3.) WE find that the decision of this Court in Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. : [2000]246ITR568(Delhi) has been approved by the Supreme Court in Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint CIT : [2007]291ITR519(SC) and T. Ashok Pai v. CIT : [2007]292ITR11(SC) .