SHRI ARVIND SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-3, JAIPUR
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under Section 271A for the failure to maintain books of account. The assessee had accepted the finding that proper books of account were not maintained.
What were the facts?
The assessee's assessment was reopened based on information of bogus long-term capital gains. The assessee failed to maintain books of account as required by Section 44AA, leading to penalty proceedings under Section 271A.
What were the issues?
Whether penalty under Section 271A is leviable for non-maintenance of books of account. Whether the assessee's acceptance of the finding of non-maintenance of books validates the penalty.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC
Before: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMAvk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1040/JP/2019
lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 20/11/2019 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 21/11/2019 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: R.C. SHARMA, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-I, Jaipur dated 16/07/2019 for the A.Y. 2012-13 in the matter of imposition of penalty U/s 271A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act).
2 ITA 1040/JP/2019 Arvind Sharma Vs ITO 2. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. Facts in brief are that the assessment was reopened on getting information that the assessee was taking bogus entries of long term capital gain amount to Rs. 2,39,25,064/-. After reopening the A.O. found that as per trading account of shares filed by the assessee, total sales of the assessee is Rs. 3,99,96,449/- for the year under consideration. But the assessee failed to keep and maintain any such books of account and other documents as required by Section 44AA in respect of previous year. Therefore, penalty U/s 271A is initiated for non-maintenance of books of account. The A.O. also levied penalty U/s 271B of the Act for not getting the accounts audited. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty imposed U/s 271B of the Act on the plea that since the assessee has not maintained proper books of book there is no occasion to get the accounts audited, therefore, there is no justification for levy of penalty U/s 271B of the Act. The assessee has not challenged the order of the ld. CIT(A) to the finding that the assessee has not maintained books of account accordingly the assessee has accepted the finding of the ld. CIT(A) for not maintaining the books of account. Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the penalty U/s 3 ITA 1040/JP/2019 Arvind Sharma Vs ITO 271A of the Act for not maintaining books of account. I uphold the same.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 21st November, 2019
Sd/- ¼jes'k lh 'kekZ½ (RAMESH C SHARMA) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 21st November, 2019 *Ranjan आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Shri Arvind Sharma, Jaipur. 1. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The I.T.O., Ward-1(3), Jaipur. 2. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 3. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The CIT(A) 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 1040/JP/2019) 6. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत
More judgments on Section 44AA
- Olive Enterprises, Bangalore vs Income Tax Officer Ward 5(2)(1), BangaloreITA 2547/BANG/2026[2024-2025]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2024-2025
- Sreeveena Vaddireddy, Ananthapur vs ADIT, (Int Taxn)-2, HyderabadITA 1946/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
- Ram Lal Narwani, Jaipur vs ITO Ward. 6(1), JaipurITA 32/JPR/2026[2011-12]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2026AY 2011-12
- M/S Ashok Petrol Co., Indore vs The ITO - 2(1), IndoreITA 121/IND/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed25 Aug 2026AY 2020-21
- M/S Ashok Petrol Co., Indore vs The ITO - 2(1), IndoreITA 120/IND/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed25 Aug 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Pradeep Kumar Behera vs. Superintendent CGST And Central Excise., CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Manas Behera vs. Commissioner, CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pramod Kumar Nayak vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, KendraparaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Nirmal Kumar Sharma S/O Ram Swroop Sharma vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 16 Oct 2026
- Sh Umang Uniyal vs. Commissioner Department Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 16 Oct 2026