S.CHINATALLI,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , PALACOLE
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed
ITA 74/VIZ/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Aug 2019AY 2008-09
Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blesmt. S. Chinatalli, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, 9-16-37/2, Gurujada Enclave, Palakol. Cbm Compound, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Agrpc 1150 E (Appellant) (Respondent)
For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.V. Subba Rao– Sr.DR
Section 271BSection 44A
section 44AB of the Act. In absence of the audited, the Assessing Officer is justified in levying penalty of Rs. 1.00 lakh u/sec. 271B of the Act.
4. Before us ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that during the year under consideration, the assessee entered into only one transaction which is sale of land, which resulted into capital gains
