SATYANARAIN SONI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh Hkkxpan] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 751/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2010-11 cuke Satyanarayan Soni, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Prop.- M/s Radhika Jewellers, Ward -7(2) Kunj Gali, Phagi, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABXPS 3995 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri P.C. Jain (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri P.P. Meena (JCIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 02/05/2018 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 03/05/2018 vkns'k@ ORDER

PER: BHAGCHAND, A.M. This is the appeal filed by the assessee emanates from the order passed by the ld. CIT(A)-III, Jaipur dated 18/5/2016 for the A.Y. 2010- 11. The only issued involved in the appeal is confirming the penalty of Rs. 25000/- levied U/s 271A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act).

ITA 751/JP/2016_ 2 Satyanarayan Soni Vs ITO

application being M.A. No. 109/JP/2017 and vide order dated 08/1/2018,

the ITAT recalled its order dated 14/3/2017.

which is as reproduced as under:

“In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. A.O. has erred in imposing penalty U/s 271A without specifically pointing out in the show cause notice, whether the penalty was proposed under which subsection of 44AA or U/s 271. The notice was issued read with section 44AA/271 which was invalid. The action of the ld. A.O. is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by quashing the penalty imposed U/s 271A.

The above ground is a legal ground. All relevant facts are available on record as they are emerging out of the notice issue by the ld. A.O. himself U/s 271A read with section 44AA/271 of Income Tax Act, 1961. No new facts are required to be evaluated nor any further enquiry is needed. The provisions of law are to be applied on the facts already available on record. The omission of the above ground was inadvertent.”

This ground of assessee is completely baseless and without any merit.

The notice dated 20/3/2013 is clearly specifies the sections under which

this notice was issued and penalty is to be levied. The relevant portion of

notice is reproduced as under:

“Whereas you have failed to maintain the books of accounts and other books of accounts and other documents as required under section 44AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 relevant to assessment year 2010-11.

Whereas, you failed to comply with the statutory provisions of section 44AA of the I.T. Act, 1961 and as such you are liable to penalty under section 271A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the above default.

ITA 751/JP/2016_ 3 Satyanarayan Soni Vs ITO

You are hereby required to explain as to why penalty under section 271A be not imposed upon you.”

In view of these facts, this additional ground raised by the assessee is

completely baseless, hence dismissed.

25,000/- U/s 271A of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty

by holding as under:

4.3 “I have carefully considered the facts of the case, findings of the Assessing Officer and submissions of the appellant. On perusal of penalty order and assessment order, it is seen that the assessee has declared income of Rs. 889541/- which was assessed at Rs. 930370/-. This declared income is more than the limits prescribed for maintenance of books.

Therefore, the assessee was required to maintain books of account as stated by A.O. A/R plea that same registers like job charges register were maintained cannot be accepted as such book and ledger which are the primary books were not maintained. Accordingly penalty levied by the A.O. is confirmed.”

We have heard both the sides and considered the case laws relied upon.

The assessee was under legal obligation to maintain the books of

account in a manner by which the assessee had not maintained books in

such a manner, which makes the Assessing Officer enable to compute

her total income in accordance of the I.T. Act. Therefore, we are of the

view that the assessee deserved to be levied penalty U/s 271A of the Act

ITA 751/JP/2016_ 4 Satyanarayan Soni Vs ITO for failure to keep, maintain books of account and documents, therefore, we, therefore, sustain the order of the ld. CIT(A).

Sd/- Sd/- ¼fot; iky jko fot; iky jko fot; iky jko½ fot; iky jko ¼Hkkxpan Hkkxpan Hkkxpan½ ½ ½ ½ Hkkxpan (VIJAY PAL RAO) (BHAGCHAND) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur Tk;iqj Tk;iqj Tk;iqj fnukad@Dated:- 03rd May, 2018 *Ranjan आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Shri Satyanarayan Soni, Jaipur. 1. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward- 7(2), 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. 751/JP/2016) 6. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत