KS ULTRATECH PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, NOIDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8187/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 February 2023AY 2011-123 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 found that the assessment orders did not contain any finding by the AO that the books of account were not maintained or produced. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271A was not justified.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the penalty levied under Section 271A for failure to maintain books of accounts. The assessee contended that they had produced the necessary books and documents as required by the Assessing Officer (AO).

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271A is leviable when the assessee has maintained and produced books of accounts, and the AO has not recorded any adverse finding in this regard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, ‘C’: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &
Hearing: 23.01.2023Pronounced: 07.02.2023

ORDER PER BENCH

These are appeals by the assessee against the common order of the Ld. CIT(A)-IV, Kanpur, dated 30.10.2018, wherein, Rs.25,000/- for each assessment years, penalty u/s 271A has been sustained.

2.

For the sake of reference, we are referring the grounds of appeal for AY 2009-10.

“1) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in levying penalty u/s 271A of Rs.25,000/-.

2) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in levying penalty u/s 271A of Rs.25,000/- on the ground that that the assessee has not been maintaining books of accounts as required by the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

3) In any view of the matter and in any case, imposition of penalty w/s 271A and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.

4) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. A.O. in passing the impugned order and that too without giving adequate opportunity of hearing and without observing the principle of natural justice.”

3.

These grounds are common for each assessment year. At the outset, in this case, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that penalty u/s 271A is to be imposed for failure to keep & maintain books of accounts and documents, etc. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted from that from the assessment order itself it is evident that the assessee has produced necessary books of accounts, documents as required. In this regard, he referred to the para 4 for AY 2009-10 of the assessment order, wherein, it was duly recorded that books of accounts were submitted. He further submitted that nowhere in the assessment order is mentioned that books of accounts were not produced. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted a paper book wherein he enclosed assessee’s reply to the AO which reflected that books of accounts as required were maintained and submitted. For this purpose, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has referred to reply dated 13.09.2016 at paper book pages 41 to 114, the copy of reply dated 22.09.2016 reflected in the paper book pages 115-154. He further referred to assesee’s reply dated 03.12.2016 filed before the AO at paper book pages 115-165. He further referred the assessee’s reply dated 21.12.2016 filed before the AO reflected at paper book pages 166-168. Referring to the above submissions coupled with the assessment order, the ld. Counsel for the assessee pleaded that there is no case for levy of penalty u/s 271A for non-maintenance of books of accounts.

4.

Per Contra, the Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below.

5.

We note that assessment order has been framed u/s 143(3) of the Act. The assessment orders did not reflect any finding by the AO that books of account were not maintained or not produced before the AO.

For this reference of paper book, wherein reply of the assessee are enclosed vouch for the same. In these circumstances, in our concerned opinion, penalty u/s 271A is not justified. The conduct of the assessee is not at all contumacious to warrant such penalty. Accordingly, we set- aside the orders of the authorities below and direct that penalty of Rs.25,000/- for each assessment years is liable to be deleted.

6.

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 07th February, 2023.

More judgments on Section 271A

All 701 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →