DR. SUNIL KESHAVRAO SONAWANE,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2, NASHIK
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271B was not warranted as the tax audit report was filed along with the revised returns reflecting the actual turnover.
What were the facts?
A survey operation revealed that the assessee doctor had not reflected actual professional receipts in the original returns for AY 2008-09 and 2009-10. Revised returns with tax audit reports were filed later.
What were the issues?
Whether penalty under Section 271B is leviable when tax audit report is filed with revised returns after a survey operation.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, PUNE
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM & SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM
ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: These are the appeals filed by the assessee directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 2, Nashik (‘CIT(A)’ for short) commonly dated 10.07.2017 confirming the levy of penalty for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10.
Since the identical facts and issues are involved in both the appeals, we proceed to dispose of the same by way of this common order.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual engaged in profession of doctor in D.N.B. Cardiology. A survey operations u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short) were conducted in 2 & 2424/PUN/2017 the business premises of the appellant on 11.03.2011. During the course of survey operations, the Assessing Officer found that the actual professional receipts were reflected in the returns of income filed for the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. Accordingly, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 26.09.2011. In response to the notice u/s 148, the appellant filed the returns of income showing the gross receipts exceeding turnover prescribed for filing the tax audit report u/s 44AB of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271B of the Act and imposed the penalty of Rs.22,550/- and Rs.25,040/- for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 vide penalty order dated 25.09.2013 rejecting the contention of the appellant that since the assessments were made consequent to the returns of income filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act since tax audit report was filed allowing with the same, no penalty should be imposed.
Being aggrieved by the above action of the Assessing Officer, an appeal was preferred before the ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer.
Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the appellant is before us in the present appeals.
We heard the ld. CIT-DR and perused the material on record. Admittedly, in the original returns of income filed, the appellant had not disclosed the actual gross receipts and the actual gross receipts were reflected in the revised returns of income filed by the appellant and the tax audited report was filed along with the revised returns of income. The occasion to get the books of account audited would arise only once the actual turnover was reflected in the books of account regularly maintained. The
More judgments on Section 133A
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ranchhodbhai Kurjibhai Kakadiya, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 553/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Amr Infrastructures, Hyderabad vs DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), HyderabadITA 818/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Shri Vikaskumar Macwan, Nadiad vs Dc/ACIT Central Circle 3, VadodaraITA 2022/AHD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Principal Commissioner Of CustomsTelangana · 30 Oct 2026