Loading judgment…
Facts
Ram Lakhan, a transporter, faced a penalty of Rs. 1,27,102/- under section 271B for not auditing his books. He claimed exemption under section 44AE for presumptive assessment, which requires owning not more than ten goods carriages. However, during a 133A survey statement, he admitted owning eleven vehicles, a statement he later contended was made under duress.
Held
The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's contention, as the assessee's admission of owning eleven vehicles during the survey was not rebutted. This disqualified him from the benefits of section 44AE presumptive assessment. Therefore, the penalty under section 271B for failure to get books audited was confirmed.
Key Issues
The key issue was the applicability of penalty under section 271B for non-auditing of books, specifically concerning the assessee's eligibility for presumptive assessment under section 44AE given his admission of owning eleven goods carriages.
Sections Cited
271B, 44AE, 133A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI (SMC
Date of hearing 18.12.2024 Date of pronouncement 18.12.2024 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2018-19, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-27 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], New Delhi’s order dated 29.08.2023 involving penalty proceedings under section 271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
It emerges during the course of hearing that both the ld. lower authorities have levied 271B penalty of Rs.1,27,102/- on account of the fact that the assessee had failed to get his books audited as prescribed in the statute.
Learned counsel strongly argues that the assessee is not required to get his books audited once he had opted for presumptive assessment u/s. 44AE of the Act being a transporter. The Revenue’s contention is that section 44AE applies only in an instance wherein the concerned assessee does not own more than ten goods carriages. Shri Meena invites my attention to assessee’s 133A statement dated 06.02.2018 (para- 4.6 in the lower appellate findings), wherein he had duly admitted the ownership of eleven such vehicles.
Mr. Jain, on the other hand, submits that the assessee’s survey statements had been recorded under duress, which is not admissible in law as per CBDT Circular F.No. 286/Z/2003-IT(Inv) dated 10th March, 2003.
I have gone through the record and after considering rival submissions, find merit in the Revenue’s stand. It is for the precise reason that the assessee even has disclosed his vehicle numbers during the survey, which remained un-rebutted till date. No benefit would be admissible to him for presumptive