New User / Regiser - Forget password
Shri Subhrajee Mallick, Prop. M/s. BPL. Distributors Versus Income-tax Officer, Ward-2, Paradeep. - 2012 (11) TMI 137 - ITAT CUTTACK
Retail trade u/s 44AF - Income below the rate of 5 as prescribed u/s 44AF - Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) for non-compliance and u/s.271(1)(c) holding a view the addition was the result of submission of inaccurate particulars of income in violation to the provisions of Section 44AF - Held that - CIT(A) can do what the ITO can do and also direct him to do what he has failed to do, as held in Jute Corpn. of India Ltd. v. CIT 1990 (9) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT - Since the assessee maintained books of account duly audited u/s.44AB, there is no scope for application of the provisions of Section 44AF, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the assessee. The benchmark of 5 therefore 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.