IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.272 of 2005 THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,PATNA Versus SUSHIL KUMAR, SAMARPAN HOUSE, SHEIKHPURA, PATNA WITH MA No.273 of 2005 THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,PATNA Versus SUSHIL KUMAR, SAMARPAN HOUSE, SHEIKHPURA, PATNA WITH MA No.276 of 2005 THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,PATNA Versus MASTRIN PHARMACEUTICAL (P) LTD. SAMARPAN HOUSE,SHEIKHPURA,PATNA WITH MA No.277 of 2005 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,PATNA Versus MANAS SALES CORPORATION,SAMARPAN HOUSE,SHEIKHPURA,PATNA WITH MA No.278 of 2005 THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,PATNA Versus TRIPURARI MOHAN PRASAD,SAMARPAN HOUSE,SHEIKHPURA,PATNA WITH MA No.279 of 2005 THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,PATNA Versus TRIPURARI MOHAN PRASAD,SAMARPAN HOUSE,SHEIKHPURA,PATNA ----------- For the Appellants : Mr.Rishi Raj Sinha, Junior Standing Counsel (In M.A.272 of 2005, M.A.273 of 2005 and M.A.279 of 2005) Mr.Harshwardhan Prasad,Senior Standing Counsel Mrs.Archana Sinha, Junior Standing Counsel (In M.A.276 of 2005, M.A.277 of 2005 and M.A.278 of 2005) For the Respondents : Mr.Ajay Rastogi, Advocate. ------------ 6. 17.10.2008 All these appeals arise out of an order dated 28.2.2005 passed by the Patna Bench of the Income Tax Tribunal in I.T.A.Nos.37, 38, 31, 41, 36 and 34 (Patna) of 2004 respectively. 2 Mr.Rishi Raj Sinha and Mr.Harshwardhan Prasad appear on behalf of the appellants. Respondents are represented by Mr.Ajay Rastogi. The Tribunal, on fact, found that no satisfaction was recorded by the Assessing Officer before initiating the penalty proceeding. Relying on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. [246 I.T.R. 568], it came to the conclusion that the Assessing authority has to form his opinion and record his satisfaction, before initiating the penalty proceeding and the Assessing Officer having not done so, the order inflicting penalty is vitiated. We are of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises for our determination. Appeals stand dismissed in limine. (Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, J.) (Subash Chandra Jha, J.) Narendra/