TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 791X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tual turnover or gross receipts of the assessee’s business. 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 in the case of Suraj Mal Parasuram Todi (1996 (8) TMI 102 - GAUHATI High Court) and case of Bisauli Tractors (2007 (5) TMI 181 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT). A.O. is also directed to verify another contention raised by the learned counsel for the assessee that the penalties of ₹ 1,47,702/- and ₹ 1,35,820/- imposed for A.Y. 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively are more than the maximum penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- leviable for the said years and allow appropriate relief to the assessee accordingly. - I.T.A. Nos. 839 to 842/Kol/2017 - - - Dated:- 13-4-2018 - Shri P.M. Jagtap, AM And Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, JM For The Assessee : Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate For The Revenue : Shri A Bhattacharjee, Addl CIT ORDER Per P.M. Jagtap, AM These four appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the four separate orders ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consideration were completed by the A.O. under section 147/143(3) wherein he estimated the business income of the assessee by applying the net profit rate on the revised gross receipts of ₹ 50,36,700/-, ₹ 2,95,40,582/-, ₹ 1,68,58,239/- and ₹ 2,71,63,464/- for A.Y. 2007- 08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 respectively. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) as well as Tribunal allowed part relief to the assessee by reducing the rate of net profit applied by the A.O. for estimating the business income of the assessee. 3. Since the revised gross receipts of the assessee for all the four years under consideration had exceeded the amounts specified under section 44AB of the Act and the assessee had failed to get his books of account audited before the due date as required by section 44AB, penalty 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 consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aw 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 Ignorantia legis neminem excusat which means that ignorance of law shall not excuse a person. That said, it has also to be observed that the maxim has to be applied only in fit cases and that too facts and circumstance of the case warrants its application. The study of the status of the maxim in England, US and India clearly indicates that courts are reluctant to accept the maxim bluntly, but it cannot be wished away. In my considered view, it has to be applied in fit cases when circumstances clearly warrant it, the maxim need not be applied and a person may be excused for his ignorance. It may not be admissible in criminal matters but in other areas of law it can be applied only if it is warranted. In the present case, I am of the considered view it has to be applied, otherwise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 40,00,000/- upto A.Y. 2010-11. What is therefore relevant for the purpose of application of section 44AB is the actual gross receipts or turnover of the business of the assessee for the relevant year and not the turnover as declared by the assessee in his returns of income filed under section 139(1). In the present case, the gross receipts or turnover of the business of the assessee for all the four years under consideration was found to be actually more than the limit of ₹ 40,00,000/- prescribed in section 44AB and the said quantum having been upheld even in appeal by 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
