Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- levied under section 271A for non-maintenance of books of accounts. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee's gross receipts exceeded the audit limit under section 44AB, necessitating books of accounts and audit. The assessee's attempt to settle the matter under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was rejected as penalties unrelated to quantum additions are not covered.
Held
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to maintain books of accounts as required by section 44AA, despite exceeding the turnover limit. No reasonable cause for non-compliance was established. Consequently, the penalty under section 271A was confirmed as the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was not applicable to such penalties.
Key Issues
Whether the penalty under section 271A for non-maintenance of books of accounts is valid. Whether the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme applies to penalty appeals not linked to quantum additions.
Sections Cited
271A, 44AA, 44AB, 271B, 271BA, 271DA, 92, 93
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI B.M. BIYANI & SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI
आदेश/ O R D E R
Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:
Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 30.06.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of penalty-order dated 30.05.2018 passed by learned ITO, Shajapur [“AO”] u/s 271A of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for assessment-year [“AY”] 2010-11, the assessee has filed this appeal on following grounds:
Page 1 of 6
“1. The Ld. CIT(A) NFAC has erred in imposing penalty u/s 271A of Rs. 25,000/- due to non maintenance of Books of Accounts. 2. The penalty levied of Rs. 25,000/- may please be deleted. 3. The assessee craves to amend, alter or delete any of the ground of appeal
.”
2. The assessee in present case is aggrieved by the penalty of Rs. 25,000/- u/s 271A imposed by AO and upheld by CIT(A) for non- maintenance of books of account.
We have heard the learned Representatives of both sides and perused the case record including the orders of lower authorities.
In Para 4 of assessment-order, the Ld. AO has noted as under:
“5. चूं�क �नधा�रती के कथनानुसार वष� के दौरान सकल �ाि�त �पये 63,86,904/- आती है।िजसकोदेखतेहुए�नधा�रतीकोअपने�यापारसे संबं�धतलेखा-पु�तक�कारख-रखावकरना/करवानाचा�हयेथातथाधारा44एबीके अधीनअपने�यापारम�रख-रखावक�गईलेखा-पु�तक�काअंके�णकरवाना आव�यकथा।�यो�क�नधा�रतीक�वष�केदौरानसकल�ाि�तअंके�णसीमा40 लाख�पयेसेअ�धकहै।अतः�नधा�रती�वाराधारा44एबके�ावधान�का उ�लंघन�कयागयाहै।साथह�अपनीआयकोभीछुपायागयाहै।अतःलेखा- पु�तक�केरख-रखावनकरनेकेकारणधारा271एएवंधारा44एबीकेअधीन लेखा-पु�तक�काअंके�णनह�ंकरवानेकेकारणधारा271बीक�शाि�तकाय�वाह� �ारंभक�जातीहै।”
Thereafter, the AO has imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- vide penalty-order dated 30.05.2018. During first appeal, the CIT(A) has passed following order upholding the action of AO:
4.1 I have considered the facts and circumstance of the case. It is found that the assessee vide its submission dated 20.01.2025 submitted Form No. 4 (under rule 7) which is an order for full and final settlement of tax areas under subsection (2) of section 92 read with section 93 of Finance Act (No. 2) of 2024 under the Direct Tax Vivad Se
Vishwas Scheme, 2024. It is certified by the competent authority that surn of being Rs. 60,192/-has been paid by the declarant towards full and final settlement of tax areas determined in order No.
751672651131224 dated 13.12.2024 with respect to the appal ref. No. 1715090240 for disputed assessmnet order dated 30.05.2018 for AY 2010-11 as under: Page 3 of 6 Ramesh Chandra Dethaliya AY 2010-11 Page 4 of 6 Ramesh Chandra Dethaliya – AY 2010-11
Before us, the Ld. AR for the assessee reiterated the submissions as were made by assessee before Ld. CIT(A). Upon careful consideration of the rival submissions and on perusal of the material available on record, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has duly examined and adjudicated the issues raised before him by passing a reasoned and speaking order. The Ld. AR could not point out any factual or legal infirmity, perversity or error in the findings/conclusions recorded by the Ld. CIT(A). In absence of any contrary material brought on record, we see no justification to interfere with the Page 5 of 6
Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed.
Order pronounced in open court on 03/02/2026
Sd/- Sd/- (PARESH M. JOSHI) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Indore िदनांक/Dated : 03/02/2026 Patel/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order Sr. Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore
Page 6 of 6