YUVRAJ SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-30(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4543/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 June 2022AY 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 a reasonable cause existed for the assessee's failure to get accounts audited, as the declared turnover was below the threshold and the additions were settled under VSV. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271B was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee declared a turnover below the threshold for mandatory audit under Section 44AB. The Assessing Officer included cash deposits as turnover, bringing it under Section 44AB and initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271B. The additions made towards cash deposits were later settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271B is leviable when the assessee's declared turnover was below the threshold and additions were settled under Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 44AB,Section 44AD,Section 271B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “F” DELHI

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kumar, CA
For Respondent: Shri Toufel Tahir, Sr.DR

PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, A.M.: The captioned appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)XXXIII, New Delhi (‘CIT(A)’ in short) dated 22.03.2019 in relation to penalty proceedings initiated under Section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2011-12. 2. As per the grounds of appeal

1.

, the assessee has challenged the imposition of penalty of Rs.77,462/- under Section 271B of the Act for alleged violation of Section 44AB of the Act.

3. When the matter was called for hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee pointed out that the assessee has declared a total turnover of Rs.58,42,500/-, and therefore, being a small businessman was not obliged to keep the accounts. The return was filed under Section 44AD of the Act and consequently provisions of Section 44AB were not applicable to the assessee per se. The Assessing Officer however proceeded on the basis that cash deposits in the nature of advances amounting to Rs.1,54,92,400/- forms part of the turnover of the assessee, and therefore, case of the assessee is covered under Section 44AB of the Act. The ld. counsel submitted that the additions made towards cash deposits of Rs.1,54,92,400/- has since been settled under ‘Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020’ (VSV). Under the circumstances, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the action of the Assessing Officer in imposing penalty under Section 271B of the Act assuming the cash deposits in the nature turnover for the purposes of Section 44AB of the Act is wholly unjustified.

4.

The Ld. DR for the Revenue relied upon the orders of the authorities below.

5.

In the light of the submissions made on behalf of the assessee, we find that reasonable cause exists for failure of the assessee to get his account audited in respect of previous year relevant to Assessment Year 2011-12 in question. The assessee has claimed turnover in business to the tune of Rs.58,42,500/- which is below the threshold of Rs.60 lac applicable at the relevant time. The assessee has filed a return taking shelter of Section 44AD of the Act and declared 8% on the turnover on estimated basis as provided under the presumptive taxation scheme of Section 44AD of the Act. The Assessing Officer in the course of assessment has displaced the turnover declared by the assessee by including the cash deposits reflected as liability by the assessee in the relevant assessment year. Thus, when seen with the fact that the quantum litigation has come to an end under ‘Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020’ (VSV) and there is no final judicial finding available regarding the correctness of turnover declared by the assessee, the benefit of doubt must go to the assessee. The income has been assessed and the tax has been collected without protracted litigation. Hence, the stale cause in the form of penalty under Section 271B should be shunned in the peculiar circumstances. We thus set aside the order of the CIT(A) and reverse the action of the Assessing Officer.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 10/06/2022.

More judgments on Section 44AB

All 2,486 judgments and leading authorities on Section 44AB →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →