Santosh Kumar Sahoo vs ITO, Khurda Ward, Khurda

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

A survey was conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 24.03.2010. During the survey, excess stock was found, and additions were made under section 143(3) of the Act. The assessee was levied a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for excess stock of gold and silver jewellery. The assessee appealed against the penalty order, arguing that the Assessing Officer did not record satisfaction on which limb of section 271(1)(c) the penalty was initiated.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is sustainable when the Assessing Officer did not record satisfaction on which limb of section 271(1)(c) the penalty was initiated?
• 2. Whether the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer without recording satisfaction is without jurisdiction?
• 3. Whether the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is barred by limitation?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• C & S Electric Limited vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre

  Delhi Bench 'B', New Delhi benchAY 2015-16Allowed

• Chetan Nandlal Sangani vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

  Rajkot bench

• Jaimin Jewellery Exports Private Limited vs. ACIT

  Mumbai bench

• Ms. Rajmal Lakhichand vs. DCIT, Jalgaon

  Pune bench

• Sector 113 Gatevida Private Limited vs. ACIT, Circle 4 (1), Gurgaon

  Delhi bench

• Smt. Smita Ashok Thakkar vs. DCIT

  Mumbai bench