COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. RANJEET SINGH DHAWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NOBODY appears on behalf of the respondent in spite of service. In these circumstances, we are constrained to hear this matter in absence of the respondent.

(2.) THE respondent/assessee had declared unaccounted cash of Rs. 11,42,885 and undeclared jewellery of Rs. 25,57,115 under VDIS, 1997. However, the required tax was not paid by the assessee. In these circumstances, notice under s. 148 of the IT Act was issued to the respondent, pursuant to which he filed the return declaring income at Rs. 37,500. On the basis of the discloser made by the assessee under VDIS, the AO framed the assessment and made additions treating the said amount as his income under s. 69A of the Act. This order was confirmed by the CIT(A). The AO simultaneously initiated penalty proceedings against the assessee under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and imposed penalty of Rs. 4,44,159 and deleted the penalty only on the ground that the AO had failed to record satisfaction in the order of assessment regarding concealment before initiating penalty proceedings. In this behalf, the Tribunal relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (2001) 167 CTR (Del) 321 : (2000) 246 ITR 568 (Del).

(3.) IT is not in dispute that there is an amendment to the aforesaid provision by the Finance Act, 2008 and this in view of the aforesaid amendment, it is not necessary for the AO to record satisfaction in the order of assessment regarding concealment before initiating penalty proceedings. We may also record that the validity of this amendment Madhushree Gupta vs. Union of India (2009) 225 CTR (Del) 1 : (2009) 26 DTR (Del) 217.