IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
 . 
         ITA 102/2008  
 . 
 . 
 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX          ..... Appellant 
 Through       Ms. P.L.Bansal, Adv. 
 versus 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 CALCUTTA TEST HOUSE P.LTD.            ..... Respondent 
 Through 
 . 
 CORAM: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA 
 . 
 O R D E R 
                        27.02.2008 
 . 
 The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 14th June, 2007 passed by the 
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ?G? in ITA No.4368/Del/2006 relevant 
 for the Assessment Year 1998-99. 
 Apart from the fact that the tax effect in this case is Rs.1,44,000/- 
 which is well below the limit prescribed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes in 
 Instruction No.2/2005 dated 24th October, 2005 for filing an appeal under 
 Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, we find that no substantial question of law 
 arises. 
 ITA No.102/2008                                                 Page 1 of 3 
 The Assessing Officer, before initiating penalty proceedings  is required 
 to record his satisfaction that penalty ought to be imposed upon the Assessee. 
 It is mentioned in the assessment order dated 9th February, 2001 that penalty 
 proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 have been 
 initiated separately. 
 Section 271(1)(c) of the Act consists of two parts namely concealment of 
 particulars of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars.  No satisfaction 
 has been recorded by the Assessing Officer whether there is concealment of 
 particulars or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.  From a reading of the 
 Assessment Order, it is not clear as to which ingredient of Section 271(1)(c) of 
 the Act has been attracted in the present case.  Even the Assessee is not aware 
 of what provision of law he has contravened so as to enable him to set up a 
 defence.  No substantial question of law arises. 
 The  appeal  is dismissed  with  costs of Rs. 10,000/- which will be 
 deposited by the Revenue by a cheque drawn in favour of the Registrar General of 
 this Court within three weeks from today.  Costs  are being imposed for the 
 reasons recorded by us in ITA No. 
 ITA No.102/2008                                                 Page 2 of 3 
 1149/2007 (Commissioner of Income Tax v. Vikram International P.Ltd.) decided 
 today.  These reasons may be read as a part of this order. 
 List for compliance on 28th March, 2008. 
 . 
 . 
 MADAN B. LOKUR, J 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 V.B. GUPTA, J 
 FEBRUARY  27, 2008 
 rs 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 ITA No.102/2008                                                 Page 3 of 3 
 . 
 . 
 .