Case Law Details
Bablu Kumar Harinarayan Gupta Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)
ITAT held that it is not fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271B merely because the appellant was unable to substantiate the submission that the appellant is only commission agent because there is no obligation on the part of the assessee to get the accounts audited as he was under the bona-fide belief that it is only commission receipt, which can be considered as turnover for the purpose of section 44AB of the Act. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty u/s 271B of the Act.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE
These are the appeals filed by the assessee directed against the separate orders of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [‘the CIT(A)’] dated 01.09.2021 for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2012-13 respectively.
2. Since the identical facts and common issues are involved in both the above captioned appeals, we proceed to dispose of the same by this common order.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
