CHEETI LAXMAN RAO,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD
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 cannot be expected to maintain books of account under Section 44AB based on an increase in turnover due to unexplained cash credits. There was no positive evidence that these deposits were actual business receipts.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer (AO) levied a penalty under Section 271A of the Income Tax Act because the assessee's gross receipts exceeded Rs. 1 crore, requiring maintenance of books under Section 44AB. The assessee argued that the increased receipts were due to unexplained cash credits and that their actual turnover was below the threshold.
What were the issues?
Whether a penalty under Section 271A is leviable when the gross receipts exceed the threshold for maintaining books of account solely due to additions made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credits.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ SMC Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi
This is assessee’s appeal for the A.Y 2013-14 against the order of the CIT (A)-7, Hyderabad, dated 28.11.2017 confirming the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271A of the Act.
The AO initiated the penalty u/s 271A since in the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act, the gross receipts had been arrived at Rs.1,72,87,696/- and since it exceeded Rs.1.00 crore, the assessee was required to maintain the books u/s 44AB of the Act and the assessee has failed to do so. Since the assessee failed to appear and show cause as to why the penalty should not be levied, the AO levied the penalty of Rs.25,000/- u/s 271A of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (A) who confirmed the order of penalty and the assessee is in second appeal before this Tribunal.
Page 1 of 3
ITA Nos 436 & 437 of 2018 Cheeti Laxman Rao Secunderabad.
The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the addition to the gross receipts has been made by the AO on the ground that the cash credits made into the Bank A/c have not been explained by the assessee. He argued that the Bank A/c cannot be treated as books of account of the assessee. He submitted that the gross receipts of the assessee were less than Rs.1.00 crore and therefore, he was not required to maintain any books of account. Therefore, he prayed for deletion of the penalty u/s 271A of the Act.
The learned DR, however, supported the orders of the authorities below.
Having regards to the facts of the case, I find that according to the assessee his gross receipts were less than Rs.1.00 crore and therefore, he need not have maintained the books of account. The gross receipts have exceeded Rs.1.00 crore only because of treating the unexplained cash credits also as turnover of the assessee. The AO has made the addition to the turnover because the assessee could not explain the cash credits but there is no positive evidence that all these deposits are the business receipts of the assessee. Therefore, by virtue of increase in the turnover due to the assessment order, the assessee cannot be expected to have maintained books of account u/s 44AB of the Act. Therefore, I am satisfied that the penalty u/s 271A is not leviable in this case. The appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed.
Page 2 of 3
ITA Nos 436 & 437 of 2018 Cheeti Laxman Rao Secunderabad.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is accordingly allowed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 15th March, 2019. Sd/- (P. Madhavi Devi) Judicial Member
Hyderabad, dated 15th March, 2019. Vinodan/sps
Copy to:
1 Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate, Flat No.102, Gowri Apartments, Udru Lane, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad 2 ITO Ward 15(1) Hyderabad 3 CIT (A)-7 Hyderabad 4 Pr. CIT – 7 Hyderabad 5 The DR, ITAT Hyderabad 6 Guard File
By Order
Page 3 of 3
More judgments on Section 271A
- Kamaljeet Singh, Rupnagar, Punjab vs ACIT Circle 1(1) Chandigarh, ChandigarhITA 426/CHANDI/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Thakorbhai Jagdishbhai Patel, Panchmahals… vs Income Tax Officer, Godhra, PanchmahalsITA 1248/AHD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
- Swajan Foundation, Lucknow vs Income Tax Officer (Exemption), LucknowITA 790/LKW/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2019-20
- Swajan Foundation, Lucknow vs Income Tax Officer (Exemption), LucknowITA 790/LKW/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2019-20
- Ram Lal Narwani, Jaipur vs ITO Ward. 6(1), JaipurITA 32/JPR/2026[2011-12]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2026AY 2011-12
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026