SHRI RAM LUBHAYA, JALANDHAR V. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE -3, JALANDHAR

ITA 747/ASR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5020 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 11-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S M SURENDRANATH
• Section: 271D; 64

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIB UNAL AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A NO. 747/ASR/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-8) SH. RAM LUBHAYA JASSAL H. NO. 297, CHOTTI BARADARI, PART-II, JALANDHAR [PAN: ABOPJ 5856A] (ASSESSEE) VS. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 3, JALANDHAR (REVENUE) ASSESSEE BY SH. NIRMAL MAHAJAN, C. A. REVENUE BY SH. S. M. SURENDRANATH, D. R. DATE OF HEARING 23.09.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 24.09.2021 ORDER PER LALIET KUMAR, JM: 1. THE PRESENT APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FEE LING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF THE PE NALTY ORDER CONFIRMED BY HIM VIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29 J UNE 2017 ON THE GROUNDS MENTIONED IN THE MEMO OF APPEAL. 2. AT THE OUTSET THE LD.AR HAD DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AND IT WAS SUBMITTED BY T HE LD.AR THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MENT IONED ABOUT THE I.T.A NO. 747/ASR/2017 2 SATISFACTION REQUIRED TO BE MENTIONED FOR INITIATIO N OF THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271 D OF THE INCOME TAX ACT HE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE MATTER OF JAI LAKSHMI RICE MILLS. 64 TAXMANN.COM 75 WHEREIN THE HONBLE SUPREM E COURT IN THE IDENTICAL FACTS AND DECIDED THAT IN CASE THE SATISF ACTION IS NOT RECORDED IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ITSELF, THEN TH E INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 271 E, WOULD NOT SURVIVE. 3. FEELING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT (A). THE LEARN ED CIT HAD DECIDED THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE A PPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 4. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US ON THE G ROUND MENTIONED IN THE MEMO OF APPEAL. THE LD. AR RELIED UPON THE SUBM ISSION THAT NO SATISFACTION WAS RECORDED IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSMEN T THEREFORE THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE REQUIRED TO BE QUASHED. 5. PER CONTRA DR FOR THE REVENUE HAD VEHEMENTLY REL IED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS BY THE C IT (A). 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTION OF THE PART IES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, INCLUDING THE JUD GMENTS CITED AT BAR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BY BOTH THE PARTIES. W E HAVE PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS CONSPICUOUSLY SILENT ON RECORDI NG OF ANY SATISFACTION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE PURPO SE OF INITIATIVE THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271D OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. I N OUR CONSIDERED I.T.A NO. 747/ASR/2017 3 OPINION THE RECORDING OF SATISFACTION BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER IS ESSENTIAL FOR INITIATION OF ANY PENALTY UNDER SECTI ON 271D OF THE ACT AND FAILURE TO RECORD, THE SATISFACTION IN THE MANN ER PROVIDED BY THE LAW AND MORE PARTICULARLY IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDGE MENT, IS FATAL, AND ACCORDINGLY THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAIN ST THE ASSESSEE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) A RE REQUIRED TO BE QUASHED. WE ACCORDINGLY QUASHED THE SAME . 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24/09/2021. SD/- SD/- (DR. M.L. MEENA) (LALIET KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIALMEMBER DATED 24/09/2021 *DOC* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER