| Case ID |
2bab3596-eee8-4503-8b94-3dd35ba192cd |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
IT APPEAL NOS. 1044 OF 2005 AND OTHERS |
| Decision Date |
Jun 02, 2006 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Delhi High Court held that the officer initiating the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act must record his satisfaction regarding the concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Court emphasized that such satisfaction must be discernible from the order made by the authority. The mere issuance of a notice proposing to initiate penalty proceedings does not, by itself, indicate satisfaction. The Court found that the Tribunal had correctly deleted the penalty, as the authority had not adequately recorded its satisfaction. The matter was referred to a full Bench for authoritative determination of whether satisfaction can be recorded implicitly, leading to significant implications for future penalty proceedings under the Act. |
| Summary |
The case involves the interpretation of section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, concerning the recording of satisfaction by the authority before initiating penalty proceedings for concealment of income. The Delhi High Court ruled that such satisfaction must be explicitly recorded and cannot merely be inferred from the issuance of a notice. This case is significant for tax practitioners and legal experts as it clarifies the procedural requirements for initiating penalties under tax laws, ensuring that authorities cannot initiate penalties without proper justification and application of mind. The decision underscores the importance of transparency and accountability in tax enforcement, which resonates with ongoing discussions about fairness in tax administration. It is crucial for taxpayers to understand their rights and the legal standards governing the imposition of penalties, highlighting the need for legal representation in tax matters. |
| Court |
Delhi High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Indus Valley Promoters Ltd.
|
| Judges |
T.S. Thakur,
Shiv Narayan Dhingra
|
| Lawyers |
R.D. Jolly,
O.S. Bajpai,
Sanjeev Sabharwal,
Mrs. P.L. Bansal,
Ms. Rashmi Chopra,
Ms. Sonia Mathur,
Manoj Arora,
Ajay Vohra,
Ms. Kavita Jha,
J.R. Goel,
Dr. Rakesh Gupta,
Anil Sharma,
Satyen Sethi,
Sandeep Sapra,
R.M. Mehta,
O.P. Sapra,
Vishnu Sharma,
V.P. Gupta,
Basant Kumar,
Rajesh Mahna,
Jitender Saini,
Arun Khosla,
A.K. Babbar,
V.K. Sabharwal,
Tarun Kumar,
Miss Radha
|
| Petitioners |
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-IV, New Delhi
|
| Respondents |
Indus Valley Promoters Ltd.
|
| Citations |
2008 SLD 2323,
(2008) 307 ITR 142,
(2006) 155 TAXMAN 223
|
| Other Citations |
CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. [2000] 246 ITR 568,
Diwan Enterprises v. CIT [2000] 246 ITR 571 (Delhi),
CIT v. Khoday Eswarsa & Sons [1972] 83 ITR 369 (SC),
Anantharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. v. CIT [1980] 123 ITR 457 (SC),
CIT v. J.K. Synthetics Ltd. [1996] 219 ITR 267 (Delhi),
D.M. Manasvi v. CIT [1972] 86 ITR 557 (SC),
CIT v. S.V. Angidi Chettiar [1962] 44 ITR 739 (SC)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
271(1)(c)
|