Opportunity to furnish unsecured-loan confirmations is required before reassessment initiation; proceedings require fresh consideration after taxpayer...
Under-reporting on a first reassessment return attracts penalty, while enhanced misreporting penalty requires proof of a statutory misreporting catego...
The ITAT, an Appellate Tribunal, considered the issue of levy of penalty u/s 271B for failure to submit audit report u/s 44AB on time. The Tribunal noted that the penalty order did not mention prior approval of the Joint Commissioner, as required. Citing SAGAR DUTTA case, it held that the absence of such approval renders the order incompetent and a nullity. The Tribunal set aside the penalty orders totaling Rs. 150,000, stating they were passed without requisite approval. The appeal by the assessee was allowed, with the option for the revenue to approach the Tribunal if prior approval was later proven.
The ITAT, an Appellate Tribunal, considered the issue of levy of penalty u/s 271B for failure to submit audit report u/s 44AB on time. The Tribunal noted that the penalty order did not mention prior approval of the Joint Commissioner, as required. Citing SAGAR DUTTA case, it held that the absence of such approval renders the order incompetent and a nullity. The Tribunal set aside the penalty orders totaling Rs. 150,000, stating they were passed without requisite approval. The appeal by the assessee was allowed, with the option for the revenue to approach the Tribunal if prior approval was later proven.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4916 
