EXPRESS WHEELS,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-5(4), BHUBANESWAR

These appeals are filed by the assessee against the separate

orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-2,

Bhubaneswar dated 30.4.2019 confirming the penalty

u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act and order dated 29.4.2019 confirming the

penalty 271A and 271F of the Act for the assessment year 2013-

14.

P a g e 1 | 7

ITA No.12 5/CTK /20 19: A sse ssment Yea r:2 013 -1 4 ITA No.12 6/CTK /20 19: A sse ssment Yea r:2 013 -1 4 ITA No.12 7/CTK /20 19: A sse ssment Yea r:2 013 -1 4

ITA No.125/CTK/2019:

justified in confirming the penalty of Rs.2,19,415/- imposed

u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act.

account, the Assessing Officer noted that there are credits of

Rs.73,13,808/- in the bank account of the assessee, which

includes cash deposits of Rs.19,17,000/- As there was no

compliance during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing

Officer computed income of the assessee at Rs.14,62,762/- being

@ 20% of the gross turnover of Rs.73,13,808/-. On appeal, the

CIT(A) reduced the computation of income to 10% being

Rs.7,31,880/- as against 20% computed by the Assessing Officer.

Rs.4,38,830/- holding that total income assessed of

Rs.14,62,760/- is the concealed income of the assessee.

reduce the quantum of penalty by taking concealed income of

Rs.7,31,880/- determined by the CIT(A) in quantum proceedings.

Still further, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

P a g e 2 | 7

ITA No.12 5/CTK /20 19: A sse ssment Yea r:2 013 -1 4 ITA No.12 6/CTK /20 19: A sse ssment Yea r:2 013 -1 4 ITA No.12 7/CTK /20 19: A sse ssment Yea r:2 013 -1 4

were deposits of Rs.73,13,808/-m in HDFC bank accounts and the

assessee did not file the details before the Assessing Officer

despite various opportunities given. It was in this backdrop that

the authorities below were of the opinion that the assessee has

concealed the particulars of its income. However, the CIT(A) felt

that the estimation of income is unreasonable and, accordingly,

reduced the same to 10% and confirmed the addition of

Rs.7,31,880/-.

the particulars of income because the assessee did not file return

of income and also did not file the details as called for by the

Assessing officer. Accordingly, I concur with the findings of the

lower authorities and confirm the levy of penalty of Rs.2,19,415/-

and dismiss the ground of appeal of the assessee. Consequently,

the appeal is dismissed.

ITA No.126/CTZK/2019

justified in confirming the penalty of Rs.25,000/- levied u/s.271A

of the Act for non-maintenance of books of account.

P a g e 3 | 7

ITA No.12 5/CTK /20 19: A sse ssment Yea r:2 013 -1 4 ITA No.12 6/CTK /20 19: A sse ssment Yea r:2 013 -1 4 ITA No.12 7/CTK /20 19: A sse ssment Yea r:2 013 -1 4

dispute between the partners, the assessee could not maintain the

books of account.

materials available on record of the Tribunal. The undisputed

facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer observed that the

assessee failed to keep and maintain books of account as per

provisions of section 44AA of the Income tax Act, 1961 and,

therefore, he levied penalty of R.25,000/- u/s.271A of the Act for

non-maintenance of books of account in violation of section 44AA

of the Act, which was confirmed in first appeal.

“"273B. Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of clause (b) of sub­section (1) of section 271, section 271A, section 271B, section 271BB, section 271C, section 271D, section 271E, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub­ section (1) or sub­section (2) of section 272A, sub­section of section 272AA or sub­section (1) of section 272BB or clause (b) of sub­section (1) or clause (b) or clause (c) of sub­section (2) of section 273, no penalty shall be imposable on the person or the assessee, as the case may be, for any failure referred to in the said provisions if he proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure."

there is a reasonable cause, he is not subject to levy of penalty.

The case of the assessee is that due to serious dispute among the

P a g e 4 | 7

ITA No.12 5/CTK /20 19: A sse ssment Yea r:2 013 -1 4 ITA No.12 6/CTK /20 19: A sse ssment Yea r:2 013 -1 4 ITA No.12 7/CTK /20 19: A sse ssment Yea r:2 013 -1 4

partners, the assessee could not maintain books of account.

However, it is the contention of the Assessing Officer that the

assessee derives income from retail trading in tyres, batteries,

lubricants and motor accessories alongwith doing four wheeler

alignment works and the turnover was more than Rs.73,00,000/-.

Had there been any dispute among the partners, it was not

possible to achieve a turnover more than Rs.73,00,000/- and the

closure of business. I find that the assessee has shown a

reasonable cause that due to disturbance among the partners, the

books of account were not maintained. Hence, I am of the view

that in view of provisions of section 273B of the Act, no penalty

shall be imposable and allow the ground of appeal of the

assessee. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

ITA No.127/CTK/2019

penalty of Rs.5000/- levied u/s.271F of the Act.

case.

on the ground that the assessee has failed to furnish return of

income on or before 31.3.2014 without a reasonable cause. I find

P a g e 5 | 7

ITA No.12 5/CTK /20 19: A sse ssment Yea r:2 013 -1 4 ITA No.12 6/CTK /20 19: A sse ssment Yea r:2 013 -1 4 ITA No.12 7/CTK /20 19: A sse ssment Yea r:2 013 -1 4

that Section 271F of the Act provides that “If a person who is

required to furnish a return of his income, as required under sub-

section (1) of section 139 or by the provisions to that sub-section,

fails to furnish such return before the end of the relevant

assessment year, the Assessing Officer may direct that such

person shall pay, by way of penalty, a sum of five thousand

rupees.”

compelled to closure of the business could not constitute a valid

ground for the delay in furnishing the return of income, as income

from the said concern, a partnership firm, if any, is exempt under

s. 10(2A) of the Act. In other words, the assessee could well have

filed his return of income, clearly stating that the income from the

partnership firm, if any, is tax exempt, is not being disclosed,

being indeterminate, if indeed so at the relevant date. I am of the

view that the assessee has not been able to show any reasonable

cause(s) for not furnishing the return of income by 31st March,

2004 and, thus, the levy is not saved by s. 273B. As such, the

impugned default can only be considered as a conscious disregard

of one’s statutory obligations, and therefore, the penalty levied by

the Assessing Officer is confirmed.

P a g e 6 | 7

ITA No.12 5/CTK /20 19: A sse ssment Yea r:2 013 -1 4 ITA No.12 6/CTK /20 19: A sse ssment Yea r:2 013 -1 4 ITA No.12 7/CTK /20 19: A sse ssment Yea r:2 013 -1 4

Order pronounced on 16/05/2019. Sd/- (Chandra Mohan Garg) JUDICIALMEMBER Cuttack; Dated 16/05/209 B.K.Parida, SPS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Express Wheels, House No.3, Rashmi Garden, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar

By order

Sr. Pvt. Secretary, ITAT, Cuttack

P a g e 7 | 7