Loading ITAT cases…
53 orders · Page 2 of 2
Since no submissions were made by the assessee and no one represented them, the Tribunal found no reason to distrust the findings of the CIT(A). Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271B. The assessee's claim of illness was not considered a sufficient reasonable explanation for the delay, especially given the continued business operations and high turnover.
The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening was invalid as it lacked proper application of mind and a speaking order, citing a Delhi High Court judgment. The appeal concerning the penalty was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.