RUPA SANJAY NIGADE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2), PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 546/PUN/2023Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 May 2023AY 2017-185 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee's argument that her commission income did not exceed the threshold for maintaining books of account was without merit. The turnover in the case satisfied the Rs. 1 crore threshold, justifying the requirement to maintain books.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against a penalty levied under Section 271B of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2017-2018. The penalty was imposed for not maintaining books of account as required by Section 44AB.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was liable to maintain books of account under Section 44AB, and consequently, whether the penalty under Section 271B was rightly imposed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271B,Section 44AB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B” : PUNE

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

Hearing: 24.05.2023Pronounced: 25.05.2023

ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. :

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017- 2018, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/ 2022-23/1052246458(1), dated 21.04.2023, involving proceedings u/s. 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2 ITA.No.546/PUN./2023

2.

Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive grievance that both the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in levying the impugned sec.271B penalty of Rs.71,732/-, we note that the NFAC’s lower appellate discussion affirming the same reads as under :

3 ITA.No.546/PUN./2023 4 ITA.No.546/PUN./2023 3. Learned counsel’s sole substantive argument in the instant case is that the assessee had merely derived small amount of commission treated as business income of Rs.4,47,770/- and, therefore, the same nowhere exceeds the prescribed threshold limit of Rs.1 crore mandatory for the purpose of maintaining the books of account u/s.44AB of the Act. We find no merit in the assessee’s instant solitary argument once it has come on record that the corresponding turnover of Rs.1 crore indeed gets satisfied in the instant case as per the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion (supra). We, therefore, reject the assessee’s vehement arguments seeking to treat her net income only in the nature of commission as business turnover not requiring her to maintain books of account. We accordingly accept the Revenue’s stand supporting the NFAC’s above detailed discussion in entirety. The assessee fails in her sole substantive grievance. Ordered accordingly.

4.

This appeal of the assessee is dismissed in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 25.05.2023.

More judgments on Section 271B

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →