2012 (10) TMI 852

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... AL MEMBER: The assessee has impugned first appellate order dated 1st March, 2012 whereby the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has confirmed the penalty of Rs.1,00,000/-  levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961(the Act). 2. The relevant facts are that the Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s 271B of the Act on the basis that the assessee had .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . The contention of the learned AR before the Tribunal remained that the decision of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Smt. Bharti Sharma (2010) 6 ITR (Trib.) 48 (Delhi) fully covers issue raised in the present appeal.  He submitted that this decision was also cited before the authorities below but they have failed to appreciate the same.  The learned AR further submitt .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... unts which have been audited.  In other words, penalty cannot be imposed in respect of the business whose books of accounts have been audited and filed on or before due date specified in the Act. In that case before the Tribunal, the assessee was having two businesses namely exports and share trading.  Gross turnover from both exceeded Rs.40 lakhs.  The assessee got the accounts aud .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X