Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
Before: S/SHRI N.S SAINI & PAVAN KUMAR GADALE
1 ITA No.37 6/CTK /20 15: A sse ssment Yea r : 20 10- 2011 ITA No.37 7/CTK /20 15: A sse ssment Yea r : 20 10- 2011 ITA No.37 8/CTK /20 15: A sse ssment Yea r : 20 10- 2011 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
BEFORE S/SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No.376/CTK/2015: Assessment Year : 2010-2011 ITA No.377/CTK/2015: Assessment Year : 2010-2011 ITA No.378/CTK/2015: Assessment Year : 2010-2011
Chandrakanta Pradhan, Plot Vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), No.885, Kapil Prasad, Old Bhubaneswar. Town, Bhubaneswar. PAN/GIR No.AGWPP 8905 D (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)
Assessee by : Shri D.K.Sheth, AR Revenue by : Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Date of Hearing : 08/08/ 2017 Date of Pronouncement : 09 /08/ 2017
O R D E R Per N.S.Saini, AM These are appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders
of the CIT(A)-1,Bhubaneswar, all dated 22.7.2015 for the assessment
year 2010-2011.
In ITA No.376/CTK/2015, the grievance of the assessee is that
the CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty levied u/s.271A of Rs.25,000/-.
We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of lower
authorities and materials available on record. The undisputed facts of the
case are that the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee was
required to produce books of account but he could not produce any books
2 ITA No.37 6/CTK /20 15: A sse ssment Yea r : 20 10- 2011 ITA No.37 7/CTK /20 15: A sse ssment Yea r : 20 10- 2011 ITA No.37 8/CTK /20 15: A sse ssment Yea r : 20 10- 2011 of accounts and only produced purchase bills/invoice. Therefore, the
Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has not maintained any
books of account as required u/s.44AA(i) of the Act and levied penalty of
R.25,000/- u/s.271A of the Act for non-maintenance of books of account
in violation of section 44AA of the Act.
On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer.
Before us, no plausible reason has been given by ld A.R. of the
assessee to explain the reason for non-maintenance of books of account
by the assessee. Hence, we find no good and justifiable reason to
interfere with the order of the CIT(A), which is hereby confirmed and
ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
In ITA No.377/CTK/2015, the grievance of the assessee is that
the CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs.31,085/-
u/s.271B of the Act.
Brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer found from the
bank accounts of the assessee that there were deposits to the tune of
Rs.62,16,989/- during the relevant previous year. The total deposits
were considered to be the turnover of the assessee and the profit was
determined on estimation thereon. Since the turnover was taken at
Rs.62,16,989/-, which exceeds Rs.40 lakhs, the Assessing Officer initiated
penalty proceedings u/s.271B of the Act for failure on the part of the
3 ITA No.37 6/CTK /20 15: A sse ssment Yea r : 20 10- 2011 ITA No.37 7/CTK /20 15: A sse ssment Yea r : 20 10- 2011 ITA No.37 8/CTK /20 15: A sse ssment Yea r : 20 10- 2011 assessee to get the accounts audited u/s.44AB and levied penalty of
Rs.31,085/- u/s.271B of the Act. @ ½% of the turnover of
Rs.62,16,989/-.
On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer.
After considering the rival submissions and perusing the orders of
lower authorities, we find that the Assessing Officer has levied the penalty
u/s.271B of the Act on the ground that the assessee has not got its
account audited u/s.44AB of the Act. We also find that the Assessing
Officer himself has held that the assessee has not produced books of
account, bills and voucher and, therefore, determined the income of the
assessee by applying 7.67% to the gross sales of Rs.62,16,989/-. Thus,
when the Assessing Officer has come to the conclusion that the assessee
has not maintained books of account, therefore, it cannot be produced
before him and the question of getting its accounted audited u/s.44AB
does not arise. The Assessing Officer has levied penalty u/s.271A of the
Act for non-maintenance of books of account by the assessee, which is
confirmed by us in the appeal filed by the assessee. Hence, we set aside
the orders of lower authorities and delete the penalty of Rs.31,085/-
levied u/s.271B of the Act and allow the ground of appeal of the assessee.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
4 ITA No.37 6/CTK /20 15: A sse ssment Yea r : 20 10- 2011 ITA No.37 7/CTK /20 15: A sse ssment Yea r : 20 10- 2011 ITA No.37 8/CTK /20 15: A sse ssment Yea r : 20 10- 2011 12. In ITA No.378/CTK/2015, the grievance of the assessee is that
the CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs.26,108/-
u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act.
The brief facts are that the Assessing Officer found that the
assessee had disclosed lesser turnover of Rs.39,31,172/- whereas the
turnover which was quantified on the basis of deposit in the bank account
at Rs.62,16,989/-. Therefore, the Assessing Officer estimated the profit
@ 7.67% of the total turnover of Rs.62,16,989/-. Thereafter, the
Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for
furnishing inaccurate particulars of income of Rs.26,108/-.
Before the CIT(A), the assessee contended that since in the
assessment order, the income was estimated, the assessee cannot be
treated to have concealed his income or have furnished any inaccurate
particulars of his income.
The CIT(A) confirmed the levy of penalty observing that there
was clear case of suppression of turnover to the extent of Rs.22,85,817/-
(Rs.62,16,989 – Rs.39,31,172/-). This suppression of turnover could not
have come to light had the Assessing Officer not examined the bank
accounts. The assessee has not given any convincing reasons for not
disclosing the actual turnover.
Before us, ld A.R. though submitted that penalty should be deleted
as the income of the assessee was estimated by the Assessing Officer but
5 ITA No.37 6/CTK /20 15: A sse ssment Yea r : 20 10- 2011 ITA No.37 7/CTK /20 15: A sse ssment Yea r : 20 10- 2011 ITA No.37 8/CTK /20 15: A sse ssment Yea r : 20 10- 2011 could not controvert the findings of the CIT(A) that this was a case of
suppression of turnover to the extent of Rs.22,85,817/-. Hence, we find
no good and justifiable reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A),
which is hereby confirmed and the ground of appeal of the assessee is
dismissed.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 09 /08/2017. Sd/- sd/- (Pavan Kumar Gadale) (N.S Saini) JUDICIALMEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 09/08/2017 B.K.Parida, SPS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The appellant :Chandrakanta Pradhan, Plot No.885, Kapil Prasad, Old Town, Bhubaneswar. 2. The Respondent. ITO, Ward-1(2), Bhubaneswar 3. The CIT(A)-1, Bhubaneswar 4. Pr.CIT-1, Bhubaneswar 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy// BY ORDER,
SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, Cuttack