TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1307X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nowledgement of e-Return filed, copies of bank account details, Vakalatanama copy of Service Tax Return. Only dispute raised by both the authorities below that the assessee has not produced books of account, whereas the AO has himself admitted that the return of income filed was accompanied by audit report and other documents. The assessee has produced the tax audit report which has been accepted by the AO. The auditor has also certified that the various books have been maintained. The revenue has not brought any cogent material on record so as to establish that the assessee has not maintained books and such documents as required u/s.44AA of the Act or the rules made thereunder. Therefore, the penalty levied u/s.271A for both the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e sole issue involved in both the appeals of the assessee is with regard to confirming the penalty levied u/s.271A of the Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee derives income from execution of transportation works in the name style of M/s Agarwala Transport and filed its return of income on 27.09.2012 for the A.Y.2012-2013 declaring total income at ₹ 11,61,300/-. Similarly, the assessee filed its return of income for A.Y.2013-2014 on 21.09.2013 declaring total income at ₹ 10,67,380/-. Both the cases of the assessee were selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued to the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO found that the assessee has not filed books of account, therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of account for contract work business have been prescribed u/s.44AA of the Act read with rule 6F of the I.T.Rules, 1962. However, without considering the submission and documents produced by the assessee, levy of penalty u/s.271A of the Act in both the assessment years under consideration deserve to be quashed. In this regard, ld. AR relied on the following case laws :- i) ACIT Vs. Aggarwal Construction Company, (2007) 107 TTJ (Chd) 623; and ii) Harilal Dhanwani Vs. ITO (1993) 45 TTJ (Del) 437. 7. On the other hand, ld. DR relied on the orders of authorities below. He further submitted that the levy of penalty under this section is mandatory in the case of not maintaining books of accounts. The assessee could not produce the boo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te raised by both the authorities below that the assessee has not produced books of account, whereas the AO has himself admitted that the return of income filed was accompanied by audit report and other documents. The assessee has produced the tax audit report which has been accepted by the AO. The auditor has also certified that the various books have been maintained. The revenue has not brought any cogent material on record so as to establish that the assessee has not maintained books and such documents as required u/s.44AA of the Act or the rules made thereunder. Therefore, the penalty levied u/s.271A for both the assessment years under consideration cannot be sustained on the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9. On further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
