9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 791X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10 84,291/- 2010-11 1,35,820/- 2. The assessee in the present case is an individual who is engaged in the business of construction as well as the labour contractor. The returns of income for all the four years under consideration were originally filed by him under section 139(1) declaring gross receipts from business and total income as under: Assessment Year Gross Receipts Total Income 2007-08 36,00,000/- 1,81,860/- 2008-09 37,13,848/- 1,84,600/- 2009-10 38,85,280/- 2,15,803/- 2010-11 37,12,069/- 2,32,005/- All the four returns of income filed by the assessee for the years under consideration were initially processed by the A.O. under section 143(1) accepting the income declared by the assessee. During the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceedings under section 271B of the Act were initiated by the A.O. for all the four years under consideration. In this regard, explanation offered by the assessee in response to the show cause notices issued during the course of penalty proceedings was not found acceptable by the A.O. He accordingly proceeded to impose penalty under section 271B for all the four years under consideration as under: Assessment Year Amount 2007-08 25,184/- 2008-09 1,47,702/- 2009-10 84,291/- 2010-11 1,35,820/- 4. The penalties imposed by the A.O. under section 271B for all the four years under consideration were challenged by the assessee in the appeal filed before the Ld. CIT(A) and since the submissions made by the assessee in support of its c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for any person can put forward ignorance as a defense even though he was actually aware of the law and its full consequences. The law enforcement machinery shall come to a grinding halt if ignorance is accepted as a defense. Being a negative fact, court cannot insist on proof also, It requires the study of the mental position of the law breaker which is a real difficult exercise if not an impossible proposition. For all these reasons the policy of law has always been to reject the plea of ignorance of law. Lord Ellenborough said "there is no saying to what extent the excuse of ignorance might not be carried, it would be urged in almost every case." Thus, the above discussion explains the philosophy or rationale behind the latin maxirn "Igno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red into by her were more than prescribed monetary limit for tax audit under section 44AB - No bonafide reasons were furnished by assessee, for not getting books of accounts audited, before Assessing Officer or first appellate authority - Whether considering principles governing imposition of penalty under section 271B Assessing Officer was justified in levying penalty for not getting her books of account audited - Held, yes [Para 7] [In favour of revenue]. In the present appeal, also in view of the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the Ld. AO has rightly levied the penalty u/s 271B and therefore such action of the Ld. AO is confirmed. The grounds taken by the appellant are accordingly dismissed." Aggrieved by the order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Tribunal, we are of the view that the provisions of section 44AB were clearly attracted going by the actual turnover or gross receipts of the assessee's business. 6. The second contention raised by the learned counsel for the assessee is that no books of account having been regularly maintained by the assessee for all the four years under consideration, no penalty under section 271B could be imposed for violation of section 44AB. In support on this contention, he has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Suraj Mal Parasuram Todi vs CIT 222 ITR 691 as well as the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs Bisauli Tractors 299 ITR 219 wherein it was held that the requirement of getting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O. in the assessment orders, we are of the view that the stand taken by the learned counsel for the assessee requires verification. We, therefore, restore this matter to the file of the A.O. with the direction to verify the claim of the assessee of having not maintained any regular books of account for all the four years under consideration from the relevant record and decide the issue in the light of the decision of Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Suraj Mal Parasuram Todi (supra) and Allahabad High Court in the case of Bisauli Tractors (supra). The A.O. is also directed to verify another contention raised by the learned counsel for the assessee that the penalties of Rs. 1,47,702/- and Rs. 1,35,820/- imposed for A.Y. 2008-09 and 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
