Only paid members can access this page.
Buy this Document - Rs. 500/- only - or - Subscribe Annual Package
M/s. Hridey Vikram, Versus Assistan Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 22(1), New Delhi. - 2012 (10) TMI 852 - ITAT, DELHI - Income Tax
......... d that the failure was due to mistake and ignorance of the law. The AO levied penalty frac12 of the total turnover of both the businesses. The learned CIT(A) held that the penalty could be imposed only with reference to the books of accounts of the business, which had not been audited and consequently upheld the penalty in respect of share trading business whose accounts had not been audited. The said first appellate order has been upheld by the Tribunal. Respectfully following this decision of the Tribunal we while setting aside the orders of the authorities below, direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty levied under section 271B of the Act in respect of M/s. Rex Engineering and Shares whose accounts were admittedly audited under sec. 44AB of the Act and audit report thereof was filed well within the prescribed time limit. The ground is thus partly allowed. 5. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. 6. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 19th October, 2012.