Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA & SHRI RAVISH SOOD
PER BENCH: are appeals by the assessee against common order of CIT-A, for concerned assessment years wherein Ld. CIT-A has confirmed the levy of penalty of Rs. 25,000/- each u/s. 271 A.
Atul A Sanghvi 505, 506, 507, 508, 509, 510, 511,512, 513, 514, 515, 516, 517/Mum./2014 2. ITA No. 511/Mum/2014 to ITA No. 517/mum/2014 are appeals by the assessee against common order of Ld. CIT-A wherein he has confirmed the levy of penalty of Rs. 1 lac each u/s. 271 B for the concerned assessment year.
Since the appeals were heard together these are being consolidated and disposed of together by this common order.
Appeal against penalty u/s. 271 A.
At the outset Ld. Counsel submitted that penalty has been levied for non-maintenance of books of accounts. He submitted that assessee has not been doing any business he was only receiving commission. Ld. Counsel fairly agreed that for the earning of commission income too assessee should have maintained books of accounts. In view of the aforesaid admission by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee that assessee has not maintained required books of accounts we do not find any infirmity of the order of Ld. CIT-A. Accordingly we uphold the same.
Appeals against levy of penalty u/s. 271 B.
On this issue we note that penalty has been levied for not getting the accounts audited u/s. 44 A B. On this issue Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that when the assessee has been found to be not maintaining books of accounts, there is no question of levy of penalty u/s. 271 B for failure to get the accounts audited. In this Atul A Sanghvi 505, 506, 507, 508, 509, 510, 511,512, 513, 514, 515, 516, 517/Mum./2014 regard Ld. Counsel placed reliance upon following Hon’ble Allahabad High Court decision wherein it was held that where no books of accounts are maintained by the assessee penalty u/s. 271 B is not attracted. i) CIT vs. S. K Gupta & Company (322 ITR 0086). ii) CIT vs. Bisauli Tractors (299 ITR 0219) 8. No jurisdictional High Court decision contrary to the above proposition was brought before us.
Accordingly respectfully following the precedents from the Hon’ble High Court decision as above we set aside the above orders of authorities below and delete the levy of penalty u/s. 271 B.
In the result assessee’s appeals in to 510 are dismissed and assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 511 to 517 are allowed.