1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' to jump to entered page
Press 'Enter' to jump to entered page
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' to jump to entered page
Press 'Enter' to jump to entered page
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' to jump to entered page
<h1>Tribunal cancels penalty for medical practitioner's audit non-compliance</h1> The Tribunal canceled the penalty imposed under section 271B on the appellant, a medical practitioner, for not getting his accounts audited under section ... Failure To Get Accounts Audited Issues:Penalty under section 271B for not getting accounts audited under section 44AB of the Act.Analysis:The appellant, a medical practitioner and proprietor of a clinic and diagnostic center, did not get his accounts audited under section 44AB of the Act despite total receipts exceeding the threshold. The Assessing Officer (AO) levied a penalty under section 271B, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). The appellant argued that separate records were maintained for professional receipts, pathological receipts, and sales of medicines, and contended that the provisions of section 44AB were not attracted if these receipts were considered separately. Additionally, the appellant claimed that legal advice received regarding the audit requirement was based on the thresholds not being met. The Departmental Representative disagreed with these submissions.Upon review, the Tribunal noted that the appellant had distinct types of receipts from different sources, indicating a reasonable cause for not obtaining the audit report. The Tribunal found that the appellant acted in good faith based on legal advice received, which was deemed a reasonable cause in the eyes of the law. The advocate's affidavit attesting to the advice provided further supported the appellant's position. Considering the debatable nature of the issue regarding the nature of receipts and the reliance on legal advice, the Tribunal concluded that no penalty should be imposed under section 271B. Consequently, the penalty was canceled, and the appeal was allowed.