Back
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT
Arun Cotton Company – Appellant
Versus
A. C. I. T. Circle, Sriganganagar – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 27.05.2009 passed by ICAT affirming the order dated 18.08.2008 of CIT(A), Bikaner and penalty order dated 10.03.2008 of Assessing Officer, with the following prayers:
(ii) Quash the impugned peanlty order dated 10.03.2008 passed by the Assessing Authority in the case of the appellant for the A.Y. 2005-06.
(iii) Decide the aforesaid questions of law in favour of the appellant and against the revenue.
(iv) Reframe suitable questions of law, if it is considered necessary, to do justice to the appellant.
(v) Any other appropriate relief, as may be considered appropriate, in the interest of justice, including awarding of the costs."
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was a partnership firm vide partnership deed dated 01.04.1990. The counsel for the appellant submits that the partnership firm was dissolved on 31.03.2005 on mutual consent of all the partners and therefore, the place of business no more remained at Sriganaganagar as, the partners from 01.04.2005 were residing at Mumb
The imposition of penalty under Section 271B is unjustified if the assessee demonstrates a reasonable cause for non-compliance with audit requirements.
Failure to timely e-file tax audit report under S.44AB attracts S.271B penalty unless reasonable cause under S.273B proven.
Mere failure to file return under section 139(1) does not attract penalty u/s 271(1)(c) if reasonable cause shown, timely audit filed with disclosures, income accepted without addition post-section 1....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
