Penalty U/s. 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is leviable for failure to get accounts audited where the turnover / gross receipts exceeds the prescribed limit. Many times it happens that the turnover as per the regular books of accounts remains under the prescribed limit and as such the assessee do not gets the accounts audited U/s. 44AB.
A perusal of financial statement, bank statements and income tax returns of share applicants companies clearly revealed that they had no regular means to invest in the share capital of the assessee company and, therefore, AO was justified in making addition under section 68 on the ground of lack of creditworthiness and genuineness.
AO was not justified in adding the entire suppressed receipts after rejection of books of accounts while making assessment u/s 153A as CIT(A) was fair enough to apply 2% of net profit rate on the alleged suppressed receipts by taking basis of net profit rate disclosed by the assessee for various assessment years which ranges from 0.5% to 2.05%.
Omprakash Gupta Vs ACIT (Central)- II (ITAT Indore) Conclusion: No addition could be made in case of concluded assessments and non abated assessments in absence of an incriminating material discovered during search. Held: In the assessment order, AO observed that once search was conducted and notice was issued u/s 153A, AO was bound to issue […]
Since objects of assessee were duly charitable in nature and there was no dispute as to genuineness of its activities, therefore, no registration could be denied under section 12AA merely on the basis that assessee was not carrying out activities for charitable purposes.
Initiation of assessment proceedings under section 153C in case of other person, i.e., assessee without issuing proper satisfaction note by AO of the searched person in favour of AO having jurisdiction of such other person, the proceedings initiated u/s 153C was void-ab-initio.
Shri Sushil Kumar Golecha Vs ACIT (ITAT Indore) The law is well settled where the issue of jurisdiction of assessing authority is concerned, if the jurisdiction assumed is not in accordance with law, then it cannot be cured or ignored under the provisions of section 292B of the Act. In our considered view, the assumption […]
Shri Om Prakash Patidar (HUF) Vs ITO (ITAT Indore) Admittedly the appellant has received the amount in question and the amount is duly deposited in the bank account of the appellant and the appellant has failed to satisfactorily explain the source of the said deposits in his bank account and hence the investment in the […]
Reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3) by issuing notice under section 148 but without issuance of notice u/s 143(2) was invalid and void ab initio and thus liable to be quashed.
In the present case at the very inception notice initiating penalty is not in accordance with mandates of law. Moreover, it is settled position of law that such defect is not curable u/s 292BB of the Act. Therefore, we hereby quash the penalty order.
