SRI SUBODH KUMAR PODDAR,WEST SINGHBHUM vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 39/RAN/2019Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi04 March 2020AY 2008-092 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that imposing penalties for non-maintenance of books of account is incorrect when the assessee is assessed under Section 44AF, a presumptive scheme that does not mandate book-keeping. Therefore, the penalties were deleted.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer imposed penalties under Section 271A of the Income Tax Act for non-maintenance of books of account. The assessee was assessed under the presumptive taxation scheme of Section 44AF, which does not require maintenance of books.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271A for non-maintenance of books of account can be levied on an assessee assessed under the presumptive taxation scheme of Section 44AF.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271A,Section 44AF

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH “SMC” RANCHI

Before: Shri S.S, Godara

(Oral) These three assessee’s appeals arise against the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) Patna’s common orders; all dated 29.11.2018 confirming the Assessing Officer’s action imposing penalty(ies) in common order dated 28.06.2013 inn proceedings u/s 271A of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file(s) perused.

2.

I notice at the outset that both the lower authorities have levied identical u/s 271A penalty(ies) of Rs.25,000/- in each assessment year(s), for non- maintenance of books of account whereas the individual assessee has been assessed u/s 44AF of the Act. i.e. presumptive scheme of taxation not ITA No.39-41/Ran/19 A.Ys. 08-09 to 10-11 Subodh Kr. Poddar vs. DCIT,CC-J Page 2 requiring maintenance of books of account. I therefore delete the identical impugned penalty(ies) for this precise reasons alone.

3.

These assessee’s three appeal(s) are allowed. A copy of instant common order be placed in the respective case file(s). Order pronounced in open court at the close of hearing on Wedne ay, 4th March, 2020 (#या$यक सद"य) *Dkp/Sr.PS 'दनांकः- 04/03/2020 रांची आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. आवेदक/Assessee-Shri Subodh Kr. Poddar,Sadar Bazar, Amlatola, Chaibasa-833201. 2. राज"व/Revenue-DCIT,Central Circle, Jamshedpur. Road, Dhanbad-826001 3. संबं+धत आयकर आयु-त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु-त- अपील / CIT (A) 5. .वभागीय "$त$न+ध, आयकर अपील"य अ+धकरण रांची / DR, ITAT, Ranchi 6. गाड2 फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से, // Sr. Private Secretary/P.S (on Tour) आयकर अपील"य अ+धकरण, रांची ।

More judgments on Section 271A

All 701 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →