Commissioner of Income Tax vs Dass Trading and Co.

Admit. Following two substantial questions of law arise for considerations.

(a) Whether ITAT was correct in law in deleting the penalty of Rs. 2,17,268 imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s 27(1)(c) (Sic) of the Act?

(b) Whether ITAT was correct in law in deleting the penalty on the ground that no satisfaction was recorded by the Assessing Officer in life

assessment order whereas the necessary satisfaction is clearly discernible as envisaged by Supreme Court in D.M. Manasvi Vs. Commissioner of

Income Tax, Gujarat, II Ahmedabad, in the assessment order?

In so far as question of law No. ''b'' is concerned, it is an admitted case that by the Finance act, 2008 sub-section 1(B) to Section 271 of the

income tax Act, 1961 has been added with retrospective effect from 1-4-1989 and, therefore, it is not necessary for life Assessing Authority to

specifically record satisfaction while initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271 of the Income Tax Act. On the first question of law, with the consent of

the parties, we have heard the matter finally at this stage itself.

Order reserved.