Case Law Details
Senapati Satija Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)
In Section 271B of the Act, the discretion has been given to the Assessing Officer to direct the assessee to pay by way of penalty a sum equal to one-half percent of the total sales etc. etc. The provisions empower the Assessing Officer to levy the penalty as per its discretion. In our considered view, the discretion can be exercised by a person who has been entrusted with such discretion, judiciously, reasonably and cautiously and considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
In the instant case, the assessee committed default first time for non-complying with the provisions of section 44AB because the case of the assessee crossed the threshold limits as prescribed under the provisions of section 44AB of the Act first time only and it is not the case of the Revenue that the assessee though crossed the threshold limit of section 44AB of the Act in subsequent years as well but still committed default in not getting its accounts audited. Even it is not the case of the Revenue Department that the Assessee has acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contemptuous or dishonest or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation, therefore not liable for imposition of penalty as per dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Steel limited vs. State of Orissa (83 ITR-26)(SC).
Considering the peculiar facts in totality and the analyzations made above, the Assessee is entitled to get leniency and consequently, the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer and affirmed by the ld. Commissioner is liable to be deleted, hence, ordered accordingly.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
