The appellant contented that penalty under section 271(1)(b) can be imposed by the AO if he is satisfied that any person failed to comply with the notice under section 142(1) or under section 143(2) or directions issued under section 142(2A) of the Act. Therefore, no penalty can be levied under section 271(1)(b) for non compliance of notice issued under section 148.
Hon’ble Kolkata ITAT has deleted penalty u/s 271B in the case of Dr. Shantanu Datta in I.T.A. No. 261/Kol/2017 as there was a bona fide belief entertained by the assessee in the facts and circumstances of the case and the same constituted a reasonable cause for the failure of the assessee to comply with the requirement of section 44AB.
It was explained by the appellant that the money deposited in the bank account represented cash received from elder son, who was tax payer and the withdrawals in the bank account had a a chronologically progressive linkage of events.
Assessee cannot be considered as having done willful neglect for non-compliance of the TDS provisions. This is just a technical mistake and, accordingly, the assessee cannot be held to be an assessee in default and no penalty can be imposed.
Hon’ble Allahabad High court has in the case of M/S Simbhauli Sugar Mills Ltd in ITA No 607 of 2011 has held that amendment is sec 43B is curative in nature and would apply retrospectively.
Delhi ITAT has in the case of Krishan Kumar v/s ITO in ITA No. 3985/Del/2017 has quashed the reassessment proceedings as there was no nexus between reasons recorded and addition made.
Agra ITAT has remitted the file back to the CIT(Appeals) as CIT (Appeals) had just sustained Assessing Officer’s order without himself discussing or deciding the merits of the case.
Allahabad HC in case of Ashok Auto Sales Ltd v/s CIT held that Vector shipping is not correct preposition of law as held by Honb’le SC in case of M/s Palam Gas Service vs. CIT.
Making purchases through the grey market gives the assessee savings on account of non-payment of tax and others at the expense of the exchequer. In such situation, in our considered opinion, on the facts and circumstances of the case, 12.5% disallowance out of the bogus purchases meets the end of justice. Accordingly, I hold that the disallowance should be restricted to 12.5% of the bogus purchases.
Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has in the case of Hariom Steels Pvt Ltd has held that penalty cannot be levied when deeming provisions are applied for assessing income.
