9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 671X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and circumstances of the case and in law the Id. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- imposed under section 271B of the Income- tax Act, 1961. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Id. Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) has erred in confirming penalty imposed by wrongly interpreting provision of section 44AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 3. The impugned order is bad in law and on facts. 4. The appellant reserves the right to addition, after or omit all or any of the grounds of appeal in the interest of justice. 2. Briefly stated that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading in calcinate petroleum cock. The assessment of the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eport u/s. 44AB of the Act and as a corollary it is not liable for a penalty as proposed in the show cause notice and therefore, the penalty proceedings may be dropped. Explanation of the assessee was not found convincing by the ld.AO and, thus, the penalty was levied on the assessee. 3. Aggrieved with the said penalty order u/s. 271B of the Act, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A), NFAC during the appellate proceedings but in absence of any compliance of the notices issued u/s. 250 of the Act on three occasions i.e. on 17.02.2021, 01.12.2021 & 30.03.2022, respectively, ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee observing that the non-compliance of the statutory provisions is not acceptable and no reason has been f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have audited its books of accounts u/s. 44AB of the Act. It was further submitted by the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) was also not appreciated the facts of the case and has decided the issue against the assessee by wrongly interpreting the provisions of Section 44AB of the Act. It was, therefore, prayed that the penalty levied u/s. 271B of the Act cannot be levied on the assessee since assessee's turnover was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 60 lakhs for which the audit u/s. 44AB was stipulated to be carried out. 6. Ld. Sr. DR, on the other hand, vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below. 7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. On perusal of the penalty order u/s. 271B of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t exceed five per cent of the said amount; and (b) aggregate of all payments made including amount incurred for expenditure, in cash, during the previous year does not exceed five per cent of the said payment, this clause shall have effect as if for the words "one crore rupees", the words "five crore rupees" had been substituted; or] 8. According to sub-clause (a) to Section 44AB of the Act, the audit is mandatory for every person carrying business if its turnover of the said assessee exceeds rupees sixty lakhs (for A.Y. 2013-2014) i.e. Rs. 12,31,223/- only. Since in the present case, the turnover of the assessee was below rupees sixty lakhs, we are of the considered opinion that the audit u/s. 44AB of the Act in Form 3CA had to fur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
