9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 705X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Assessing Officer under section 271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (" the Act" ), for the assessment year 2003-04. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under : " I. That the order of the Assessing Officer is bad in law, against facts and equity. II. That the Assessing Officer erred in levying a penalty of Rs.21,030 under section 271B, treating the assessee to be in default ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 271B amounting to Rs. 21,030 being 0.5 per cent. of Rs. 42,05,909 being the gross turnover of the assessee for the year under consideration. It was observed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee had shown sales, arhat commis- sion and interest income as under : Rs. Sales 30,61,424 Arhat 4,85,880 Interest 6,58,605 42,05,909 The assessee submitted before the Assessing Officer t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore, levied penalty under section 271B of the Act. On an appeal, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) con- firmed the penalty by saying that the decision cited by the assessee in the case of Bajrang Oil Mills v. ITO [2007] 295 ITR 314 (Raj) and the judg- ment of the High Court of Calcutta in the case of CIT v. Capital Electro- nics (Gariahat) reported in [2003] 261 ITR 4 are not ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the total turnover. This is a case where the alleged turnover is marginally above the limit of Rs. 40,00,000 and the assessee was under a bona fide belief that his turnover was only Rs.30,61,424 being a sale from the business of wholesale trade of food grains and oil seeds, etc. We are of the considered opinion that the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and further confirmed by the Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
