SINCERE ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR

ITA 973/JPR/2024Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 October 2025AY 2017-1828 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided the appeals as follows: For ITA Nos. 973/JP/2024 and 975/JP/2024, the appeals were allowed. For ITA No. 974/JP/2024, the appeal was dismissed. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the orders of the lower authorities concerning the penalty levied under Section 271B. The reasoning was that the assessee failed to get its accounts audited as required under Section 44AB and did not provide any reasonable cause for this failure. The lower authorities correctly confirmed the penalty. The issue regarding the adopted income and the CIT(A)'s finding that the assessee offered two different taxable total incomes was addressed in the context of the penalty appeal, implying that the quantum aspect might have been resolved or was not the primary focus of the penalty appeal's outcome. The Tribunal confirmed the penalty levied under Section 271B, stating that the assessee had violated the provisions of Section 44AB and failed to submit the required report without a reasonable cause. The appeal concerning the penalty for not getting books audited (ITA No. 975/JP/2024) was dismissed, and the AO's order was confirmed. The judgment indicates that the quantum appeal (ITA No. 973/JP/2024) and the penalty for quantum appeal (ITA No. 974/JP/2024) were allowed, while the penalty for not getting books audited (ITA No. 975/JP/2024) was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sincere Architects Engineers Private Limited, is in appeal before the ITAT Jaipur against the orders for Assessment Year 2017-18. The appeals concern quantum proceedings, penalty for that quantum, and penalty for not getting books of account audited. The assessee, engaged in architectural and engineering services, did not file its return of income for AY 2017-18. The Revenue had information regarding various income and expenditure items, aggregating to Rs. 4,56,00,362/-, which was considered escaped income. A notice under Section 148 was issued on March 30, 2021. The assessee eventually filed a return on December 14, 2021, after depositing tax and interest. The Assessing Officer (AO) assessed the income at Rs. 1,10,04,980/-, ignoring the return filed. The assessee's rectification application under Section 154 was partly allowed regarding interest calculation but dismissed concerning the adopted income. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's action.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the AO erred in not rectifying the apparent mistake of adopting total income at Rs. 1,10,04,980/- instead of Rs. 97,04,424/- as per the return filed on December 14, 2021, thereby attracting Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO's action by erroneously noting that the appellant offered two different taxable total incomes and ignoring that the income as per the return was Rs. 97,04,424/-, on the pretext that the return was not filed within the time given in the Section 148 notice. 3. Whether the penalty levied under Section 271B for failure to get the books of account audited as required under Section 44AB was justified. Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the return was filed late due to various unforeseen reasons, including portal errors, and that the period was covered by COVID-19 extensions. They also contended that the AO made an apparent mistake in not rectifying the adopted income and that the CIT(A) erred in confirming this. Regarding the penalty, the assessee argued that a corporate entity had filed requisite returns with the ROC and that there were technical reasons for not filing the ITR on time, possibly invoking Section 273B for reasonable cause. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue contended that the assessee offered two different taxable total incomes and did not file the return within the time prescribed in the Section 148 notice. For the penalty, the Revenue argued that the assessee violated Section 44AB by not submitting the required audit report and offered no reasonable cause for this failure.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 139,Section 154,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 44AB,Section 271B,Section 273B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(4)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, B JAIPUR

Before: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI,

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Sharma, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT
Hearing: 18/09/2025Pronounced: 10/10/2025

PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM The present bunch of three appeals were filed by the above named assessee. The dispute relates in all the years is of Assessment Year 2017- 18, one appeal relates to the quantum proceeding, one for levy of penalty on that quantum proceeding and the third one for levy of penalty for not getting the books of account audited by the above-named assessee. Since the matt

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →