Gurusamy Ramamurthy v .ITO (2020) 81 ITR 9 ( Chennai ) (Trib)

S.271(1)(c): Penalty — Concealment – Not recording of satisfaction -Penalty is held to be not valid .

Allowing the appeal of the assessee the Tribunal held that when the AO initiated penalty proceedings and sought for explanation, the assessee explained his transactions and brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer that the transactions were undertaken through banking channels. Therefore, the assessee prima facie placed relevant materials and explained the transaction. The penalty proceedings being a separate proceeding, if at all, the Assessing Officer intended to levy penalty, he is bound to record satisfaction that the explanation offered by the assessee is false. Since the Assessing Officer had not recorded such findings, the penalty levied was unsustainable and liable to be deleted.( AY.2016-17)