HIGH COURT OF DELHI

 

Commissioner of Income-tax

 

v.

 

National Marble & Sanitary

 

MADAN B. LOKUR AND DR. S. MURALIDHAR, JJ.

 

IT APPEAL NO. 1095 OF 2006

 

November 19, 2007

 

 

Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment of income - Assessment year 2001-02 - Whether for initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) against an assessee, it is sufficient that satisfaction of Assessing Officer is discernible from assessment order itself and that such satisfaction need not be separately or expressly indicated in assessment order - Held, yes - Assessing Officer imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c) on assessee on ground that in its profit and loss account, assessee had not reflected excess stock - However, assessee had placed certain documents before Assessing Officer which explained discrepancy in value of closing stock to some extent - Whether mere mention of discrepancy in figures in assessment order, which had some bona fide explanation, did not meet requirement of recording by Assessing Officer of his satisfaction that penalty proceedings must be initiated - Held, yes - Whether therefore, in absence of express words to that effect, no such satisfaction was even discernible from assessment order and, hence, penalty proceedings initiated against assessee could not be sustained - Held, yes

CASE REVIEW

CIT v. O.K. Hosiery Mills (P.) Ltd. [2007] 165 Taxman 515 (Delhi); CIT v. Bharat Hotels Ltd. [2007] 165 Taxman 593 (Delhi); CIT v. Fibro Tech Chemicals (IT Appeal No. 954 of 2006 decided on 14-9-2007); CIT v. Preeti Aggarwala (IT Appeal No. 850 of 2006 decided on 15-9-2007); and CIT v. Smt. Santosh Sharma [2007] 166 Taxmann 223 (Delhi) followed.