RAMESH CHANDRA DETHALIYA,POLIAIKALAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SHAJAPUR, SHAJAPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 629/IND/2025Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 February 2026AY 2010-116 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed under Section 271A for non-maintenance of books of accounts cannot be settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024. This decision was based on CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2024, which clarifies that appeals against penalties not related to the quantum of addition, such as Section 271A, require separate settlement and are not covered by the scheme. The Tribunal further noted that the assessee failed to provide any evidence of a reasonable cause for not maintaining books of accounts, despite having a turnover exceeding the prescribed limit under Section 44AA for AY 2010-11. Consequently, the penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was upheld. The Tribunal found no factual or legal infirmity in the CIT(A)'s reasoned order and therefore dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ramesh Chandra Dethaliya, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Indore Bench, against an order dated 30.06.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax-NFAC, Delhi. This order upheld a penalty of Rs. 25,000 imposed by the Assessing Officer (AO), ITO, Shajapur, under Section 271A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11. The penalty was levied for the non-maintenance of books of accounts. The AO noted that the assessee, engaged in wholesale vegetable trading, had a turnover exceeding the prescribed monetary limit for AY 2010-11 but failed to maintain books of accounts as required by Section 44AA. The assessee's grounds of appeal challenged the imposition of the penalty.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the penalty imposed under Section 271A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for non-maintenance of books of accounts is sustainable, considering the assessee's claim of opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024? Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that by opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, the penalty should be settled. The assessee relied on the fact that a Form No. 4 under the scheme was submitted, indicating a full and final settlement of tax arrears. Revenue's contention: The revenue, through the CIT(A)'s order, contended that penalties not related to the quantum of addition, such as penalties under Section 271A, are not covered under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, as per CBDT Circular No. 19 of 2024. The revenue also argued that the assessee failed to provide any documentary evidence for a reasonable cause for not maintaining books of accounts, despite having a turnover exceeding the prescribed limit under Section 44AA.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271A,Section 44AA

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

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Deshpande, AR
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 19.01.2026Pronounced: 03.02.2026

आदेश/ O R D E R

Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

1.

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:

“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.

3.

We have heard the learned Representatives of both sides and perused the case record including the orders of lower authorities.

4.

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।”

5.

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

6.

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

7.

Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed.

Order pronounced in open court on 03/02/2026

More judgments on Section 271A

All 701 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →