"-"
The ITAT held that penalty under Section 271DA cannot be sustained where the Assessing Officer failed to record a clear and conscious satisfaction regarding violation of Section 269ST in the assessment order. The ruling reiterates that such satisfaction is a mandatory jurisdictional requirement.
The Tribunal refused to condone a 441-day delay, ruling that failure to monitor appeal filing cannot constitute sufficient cause. The case underscores that professional lapses and lack of diligence will not excuse late appeals.
The Tribunal ruled that audited books cannot be discarded based on generic doubts or missing vouchers. Without identifying concrete defects, the AO’s rejection of books and 12.5% profit estimation were found legally unsustainable.
