Penalty u/s. 271AAB is not mandatory and is discretionary

DCIT Vs. Subhas Chandra Agarwala & Sons (HUF) (ITAT Kolkata)

The first contention of the ld AR is that since Sec. 271AAB of the Act is a penalty section it should be construed strictly, which we agree being it is a trite law that penalty provisions have to be strictly interpreted. Next contention of ld AR is that sec. 271AAB of the Act is not mandatory because Parliament in its wisdom has used the word ‘may’ and not ‘shall’. So, according to him, it is the discretion bestowed upon the ld AO whether

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.