Only paid members can access this page.
Buy this Document - Rs. 500/- only - or - Subscribe Annual Package
Shri Subhrajee Mallick, Prop. M/s. BPL. Distributors Versus Income-tax Officer, Ward-2, Paradeep. - 2012 (11) TMI 137 - ITAT CUTTACK - Income Tax
......... herefore was not the basis for the assessee who filed returns according to the audit report u/s.44AB. Therefore, the initiation of proceedings u/s.147 having been initiated by the Assessing Officer for the reason the assessee having violated the provisions of Section 44AF was not at all correct in view of the audit report furnished by the assessee, in our considered view the assessment orders and also the consequential penalty orders for both the AYs under consideration cannot be sustained. The learned CIT(A) having not considered this aspect of the case in its right prospective, his orders confirming the assessment orders and also the consequential penalty orders passed by the Assessing Officer also cannot be sustained. We, therefore, set aside the impugned orders of the learned CIT(A) by quashing the impugned assessment orders and cancelling the consequential penalty orders for both the AYs under consideration. 7. In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed.