SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR TONGIA,BHILWARA vs. ITO, WARD-3, BHILWARA
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bona fide belief that the share transactions were capital investments, not business. Since the AO accepted the income under capital gains and not business, the penalty under Section 271B was unjustified.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a salaried bank employee, invested surplus funds in shares. The Assessing Officer (AO) held that the share transactions constituted a business, requiring audit under Section 44AB, and levied a penalty for non-compliance. The CIT(A) partially reduced the penalty.
What were the issues?
Whether share transactions by an individual with surplus funds constitute business requiring audit under Section 44AB, and if non-compliance warrants penalty under Section 271B.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH
Before: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
आदेश / O R D E R
Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member): - 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year [in short referred to as ‘AY’] 2014-15 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax-(Appeals), Ajmer, [in short referred to as ‘CIT(A)’],
2 ITA No.485/Jodh/2018 Shri Rajendra Kumar Tongia Assessment Year: 2014-15 Appeal No.26/2017-2018 dated 17/09/2018 in confirming penalty u/s 271B for Rs.74,022/-. 2.1 Facts leading to the same are that an assessment was framed for the year under consideration u/s. 143(3) on 21/12/2016. The assessee filed its return of income at Rs.5.48 Lacs which consisted of salary income of Rs.3.19 Lacs whereas the balance was interest income from fixed deposits. During assessment proceedings, it transpired that the assessee sold shares on delivery basis for Rs.148.04 Lacs whereas sale of shares otherwise than by actual delivery was Rs.598.10 Lacs. Keeping in view the said turnover, Ld. AO opined that the assessee was obligated to maintain books of accounts and get them audited as per the provisions of Sec.44AB of the Act. 2.2 In defense, the assessee submitted that it being a salaried bank employee invested surplus funds in shares and securities as investment and not as business. The investment was not to carry out any business but only in the nature of capital investment. It incurred net loss of Rs.0.74 Lacs on non-delivery based transactions whereas the short-term capital loss on delivery based transactions was Rs.2.37 Lacs. Since the same could not be set-off from salaried income, the loss was not claimed in the return of income. Therefore, capital investment was not in the nature of business but assessable under the head capital gains. 2.3 However, disregarding the same, Ld AO maintained that the assessee was obligated to maintain books of accounts and get them audited u/s 44AB of the Act. The failure to do so would attract
3 ITA No.485/Jodh/2018 Shri Rajendra Kumar Tongia Assessment Year: 2014-15 penalty u/s 271B. Accordingly, penalty proceedings were initiated against the assessee. 2.4 During penalty proceedings, the assessee reiterated that investment were capital investment and not in the nature of business. However, not convinced Ld. AO levied a penalty of Rs.1.50 Lacs u/s 271B vide penalty order dated 29/03/2017. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the penalty, however with partial success, before Ld.CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 17/09/2018 wherein Ld. CIT(A) restricted the penalty to Rs.74,022/-, being 0.5% of sale turnover of Rs.148.04 Lacs on delivery based transactions. Still Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 4. Upon careful consideration, we find that the assessee was employed with a Bank and his primary source of income was salary income. The surplus funds were invested in shares & securities with a view to earn gains. There is nothing on record which would suggest that borrowed funds were used to carry out the transactions in a business-like manner. The assessee, all along, has maintained that the investments were capital investment and the gains / losses arising there-from were assessable under the head capital gains. In such a case, there would be a bona fide belief for the assessee to not to maintain books of accounts and get them audited under law since the said requirement would arise only in case the share transactions was the business of the assessee. From the assessment order, it is quire discernible that Ld. AO has not computed any income / losses under the Business Head and
4 ITA No.485/Jodh/2018 Shri Rajendra Kumar Tongia Assessment Year: 2014-15 accepted the position maintained by the assessee. Therefore, on the facts and circumstances, there would be no justification for levy of impugned penalty against the assessee. Therefore, we are inclined to delete the same. We order so. 5. The appeal stands allowed. Order pronounced u/r 34(4) of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.
Sd/- Sd/- (Sandeep Gosain) (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) �ाियक सद� / Judicial Member लेखा सद� / Accountant Member
मुंबई Mumbai; िदनांकDated : 21/12/2020 Sr.PS:-Jaisy Varghese आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 1. ��थ�/ The Respondent 2. आयकरआयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A) 3. आयकरआयु�/ CIT– concerned 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, मुंबई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड�फाईल / Guard File 6.
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,
उप/सहायकपंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, जोधपुर / ITAT, Jodhpur.
More judgments on Section 44AB
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Subhash Chand Saini, Jaipur vs ITO Ward, Behror, BherorITA 36/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Shobha Sudamrao Tagad, Ahmednagar vs ITO WD-1, AhmednagarITA 311/PUN/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
- Income Tax Officer, WD-3(3), Pmt Building vs Oring Industrial Networki Ng Private…ITA 181/PUN/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- ITO, Lower Parel vs Shreeji Paper Corporation, Dn NagarITA 2966/MUM/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026