9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 566X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1. That on facts and in law, the order passed by the learned Assessing Officer (AO) and the learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals [CIT(A)], are bad in law and void ab initio. 2. That on facts and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in holding that the assessee failed to get its accounts audited u/s 44AB of the Act, without considering the, fact that the LD AO has issued notice u/s 271A of the Act which implied that in his opinion no books of accounts were not maintained by the assessee. 3. That on facts and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case that when in the opinion of the LD AO, the assessee has not maintained the books of accounts, than there could not be nay audit of the accounts of the assessee as has been he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er for verification and consequential recalculation of penalty, inter alia, by observing as under: "10. In ground No.3 the appellant has mentioned that the total turnover of the assessee in accordance with the Guidance Note under section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India is as under: 1. Sales (delivery transaction) Rs. 67,12,153/- 2. Squared up transaction (Credits) Rs. 38,689/- 3. Squared up transaction (Debits) Rs. 4,47,089/- Total Rs. 72,37,931/- Although, no penalty is to be imposed as submitted above and in any case if penalty is to be imposed the same is to imposed on a turnover of Rs. 72,37,931/- only and not on the total value of transactions of R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unts by assessee u/s. 44AA of the Act, penalty u/s. 271B cannot be imposed. 7. Per contra, the learned DR relied upon the orders passed by both the lower authorities. 8. The AR further submitted that Hon'ble Allahabad High Court held in the order [(2007) 165 Taxmann 1 All)] CIT, Bareilly Vs. Bisauli Tractors that the Section 271B of the Act is not attracted in a case where no account has been maintained and instead recourse u/s. 271A can be taken. 9. Further, in support of his contentions the Ld. AR has relied upon following decisions :- i. "Mr. Mohit Garg Vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi) 12. At the same time, the legislature is also provided for separate levy of penalty for failure to meet each statutory requirement. In the instant case, the au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... foresaid discussions, we allow the Grounds of Appeal of the assessee and delete the order of the penalty imposed u/s. 271B of the Act in all the three Appeals." 10. On the basis of foregoing judicial pronouncements mentioned hereinbefore and factual position of the case we find material substance in the submission advance on behalf of the assessee/appellant. 11. From the facts mentioned here in above, we are of the considered opinion that no case of penalty u/s. 271B of the Act is made out against assessee/appellant, hence unsustainable in law and impugned penalty deserves to be deleted. 12. Consequently, this appeal of the assessee/appellant is allowed as stated above and levied penalty u/s. 271B of the Act is hereby deleted. Order pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
