AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER KRINWANT SAHAY AM
Appeal in this case has been filed by the revenue against the order dated 22.08.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-31, Delhi for the A.Y. 2019-20. Grounds of appeal are as under :-
a. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) is legally justified in deleting the penalty made by the Addl. Commissioner of the Income Tax, competent Authority, without any legality and merit of the case,
b. The Ld. CIT(A) incorrectly held that the Assessing Officer did not record satisfaction as required, despite clear evidence to the contrary, as proposal for initiation of penalty for violation of provision of section 269ST has been sent with recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer.
c. The grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other.
d. That the appellant craves to add, amend, after or modify any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.
The Ld. Counsel for the assessee brought to the notice of the Bench that the ld. CIT(A) has given very clear finding in his appellate order while cancelling the penalty imposed u/s.271DA of the IT Act. He brought it to the notice of the Bench that the Ld. CIT(A) has given a very speaking order on this issue which is reproduced as under :-
“14.A perusal of the assessment order shows that the AO has initiated penalty proceeding u/s 271AAB of the Act at two places but there is no mention of penalty proceedings to be initiated u/s 271DA of the Act. No contravention of the provisions of section 269ST of the Act has been mentioned in the assessment order.
15.Upon careful consideration of the material available on record, it is seen that no satisfaction has been arrived at by the AO for initiating the said penalty in the assessment order. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jai Laxmi Rice Mills (Supra), I am of the considered view that the penalty so imposed without the satisfaction of the AO recorded in the assessment order is not sustainable in law. I hold accordingly. Hence, the penalty so imposed by the Addl.CIT u/s 271DA of the Act is hereby cancelled.”
Per contra the Ld. DR has relied on the order of the AO.
We have considered the findings given by the Ld. CIT(A) in the penalty order canceling the penalty imposed u/s.271DA of the Act. In our view the finding given by the Ld. CIT(A) is very clear and needs no interference. Accordingly, the revenue’s appeal on this issue is dismissed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.