RED GINGER MEDIA AND ENTERTAINMENT PVT LTD,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 16(1)-5, MUMBAI

The grounds of appeal are as under: 1. The Ld. Assessing Officer as well as Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) have erred in imposing penalty of Rs. 77,629.00 and modified to Rs. 71,81,790.00 u/s 271B (it should be Rs. 71,817.00 as it appears to be calculation mistake, although maximum penalty imposable u/s 271B is Rs. 1,50,000.00) even though the assessment order has been set aside and restored to Assessing Officer for fresh assessment after due opportunity. 2. That the Ld AO has erred in Issuing Notice dated 10/12/2019 u/s 274 r.w.s.271B without deleting the appropriate limb “failed to get accounts audited” or “failed to furnish a report of such audit as required under section 44AB of the Income Tax Act.1961” under which penalty is proposed to be imposed and thus the Penalty is not sustainable. 3. The Ld. Assessing Officer as well as Ld. Assessing Officer have erred in adding the amounts of income of the assessee as appearing in Form 26AS and amounts credited in the bank statements to arrive at the turnover of the assessee and impose penalty u/s 271B without appreciating that the amounts credited in bank statements are the same as reflected in Form 26AS and thus wrongly estimating the turnover of the assessee. 4. That the Ld. Assessing Officer as well as Ld. Assessing Officer have erred in not appreciating that the total turnover of the assessee Rs. 44,81,484.25 is far below the limits prescribed u/s 44AB and thus penalty u/s 271B is bad and without juri iction. 5. That the Ld. Assessing Officer as well as Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in imposing penalty u/s 271B on estimated turnover as no penalty can be imposed on the estimated turnover. 6. That the assessee failed to file the return of income, assessment was completed u/s 144 without the production of books of accounts and no penalty 271B can be imposed where books of accounts are not maintained. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the ld.Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs. 77,629/-, being 0.5% of total turnover u/s 271B of the Act on account of assessee’s failure to get its books of account audited and to submit the Audit Report audited u/s 44AB of the Act within the time limit as the total receipts of the assessee was Rs.1,55,25,802/- as per AIR data incorporated in the Individual Transaction Statement(ITS) with the P a g e | 3 A.Y. 2012-13

Before us, the ld.AR has vehemently agitated the penalty. It was intimated that the assessment order was passed u/s 144 of the Act. The ld.AR has submitted a paper book through post dated 10.09.2025,containing as many as 50 pages which inter alia contains the appellate order dated 03.06.2025 as passed by the ld.CIT(A) w.r.t. quantum appeal(pages 3 to 21 of P.B.) wherein the assessment order which was passed u/s 144 of the Act, has been set aside vide appellate order for de novo assessment. In this case, as apparent from the above discussion the figure of total receipt/turnover is vital for determination of liability of the assessee u/s 271B of the Act. Since the quantum appeals would be passed de novo by the AO inter alia determining the amount of turnover, we deem it appropriate to set aside the appellate order and remand it back to the AO to determine the liability of the assessee to penalty u/s 271B of the Act, if any, afresh consequent to the decision taken in this regard in the de novo assessment order, Thus, we allow the grounds of appeal for statistical purposes

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 22/09/2025. SANDEEP GOSAIN PRABHASH SHANKAR (न्याययक सदस्य /JUDICIAL MEMBER) (लेखाकार सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)