NARESH KUMAR SINGH,DHANBAD vs. ITO,WARD-1(3), DHANBAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 72/RAN/2019Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi31 July 2020AY 2012-132 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the issue of maintaining books of accounts was debatable for the assessee, who acted as a transport agent without personal turnover. Therefore, the penalty imposed deserved to be deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a transport agent, was penalized for not maintaining books of accounts for assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13. The lower authorities imposed penalties under Section 271A of the Income Tax Act.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271A is leviable for not maintaining books of accounts when the assessee acts as a transport agent without personal turnover.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI, ‘E’COURT,AT KOLKATA

Before: SHRI S.S. GODARA, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM

For Appellant: Shri Navin Dokania, FCA
For Respondent: Shri A. K. Mohanti, Addl. CIT Sr. DR
Hearing: 13/07/2020Pronounced: 31/07/2020

आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench (Oral):

1.

These two assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13; respectively are directed against the CIT(A)-Dhanbad’s orders dated 04/12/2018 passed in case no. CIT(A), Dhanbad/10034& 100033/2016-17; respectively involving penalty proceedings u/s 271A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short the ‘Act’). Heard both the parties. Case files perused.

2.

We find during the course of hearing that both the lower authorities have imposed u/s 271A penalties of Rs. 25,000/- each on account of assessee’s not having maintained books of accounts. Case file indicates that this assessee had been acting as a transport agent on behalf of other parties without having turnover of his own. We conclude in view of this clinching fact that the same sufficiently & 72/Ran/2019 Shri Naresh Kumar Singh A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2012-13 suggests to be a debatable issue regarding maintenance of books of account and therefore, the impugned penalty deserves to be deleted. We order accordingly.

3.

In the result, assessee’s two appeals are allowed.

Order pronounced in the Court on 31.07.2020

More judgments on Section 271A

All 701 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →