MOHD JAVED,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-48(5), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 916/DEL/2022Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 March 2023AY 2017-184 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee was only a commission agent and the deposits did not represent his turnover. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271B was not justified.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a commission agent for Gujarat Milk Cooperative Federation, deposited Rs. 4.3 Cr. in his bank account. The revenue treated these deposits as turnover and levied penalty under Section 271B, as the assessee's declared sales turnover in the ITR was Rs. 4.01 lacs.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits in a bank account, which are not the assessee's own turnover but relate to commission agency, can be the basis for levying penalty under Section 271B.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHIBENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI

Before: Dr. B. R. R. KumarSh. Yogesh Kumar US

Hearing: 08.12.2022Pronounced: 03.03.2023

Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:

1.

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A)-3, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 29.03.2022.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. The appellate order framed is not justified in the eyes of law.

2. The learned CIT (Appeal) failed to appreciate the facts placed on the record during the course of appellate proceedings that the cash/receipts deposited in regular bank account were not a sale in the hands of appellant, it were related to the principal concern as by virtue of an agreement the appellant was to be remunerated with nominal fixed commission.

Mohd Javed 3. That the penalty appealable was deserved to kept in abeyance where the request was made that in quantum's appeal is mainly on the same issue that the appellant was only a mediator in respect of receipt appearing in Bank account. Further the principal concern had also confirmed such facts.

4. In the circumstances and fact of the case the appellant was not liable U/s 44AB so the learned CIT (Appeal) was not justified in confirming the penalty U/s 271B.”

3.

Suffice to say that owing to the cash deposits of Rs.4.3 Cr. in the bank account and the sales turnover of Rs.4.01 lacs in the ITR the revenue levied penalty u/s 271B considering the deposits of Rs.4.3 Cr. as turnover of the assessee.

4.

Having gone through the entire material on record, we find that the assessee is a commission agent of Gujarat Milk Cooperative Federation having milk booth at Darya Ganj, Delhi and earning a commission margin @ 0.55% to 12.16% per unit on butter milk to paneer. The same are as under:

Mohd Javed 5. Since, the assessee only a commission agent and earns margin as prescribed in Gujarat Milk Cooperative Federation rules as reflected in column 5 above, we hold that the penalty levied u/s 271B obliterated.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 03/03/2023.

More judgments on Section 271B

All 1,993 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →