SMT FATEMA SHOEB HUSSAIN,15, ' FATEMA VILLA' BUTY LAYOUT RAJNAGAR ,KATOL RAOD ,NAGPUR ,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD -2(4) ,NAGPUR, NAGPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 220/NAG/2017Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 September 2024AY 2009-2010Bench: SHRI V. DURGA RAO (Judicial Member)3 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the penalty, stating the assessee was the rightful owner of Maria Construction and also the sole proprietor of M.B. Travels, thus liable to maintain books of account.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged penalty orders under Section 271A for multiple assessment years. The penalty was imposed for failure to maintain books of account.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was liable to maintain books of account and consequently liable for penalty for non-compliance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271A,Section 44A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO & SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER

For Appellant: Shri Rachit Thakar
For Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Date of Hearing – 13/08/2024 Date of Order – 02/09/2024

O R D E R PER BENCH

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned orders of even date 08/03/20217, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–2, Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2004–05, 2005–06, 2006–07, 2008–09 and 2009–10.

Smt. Fatema Shoeb Hussain A.Y. 2004–05, 2005–06, 2006–07 2008–09 AND 2009–10

Since all these appeals filed by the assessee pertain to the same 2. assessee involving common issues arising out of identical set of facts and circumstances, therefore, as a matter of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order.

3.

The issue arose in all these appeals relate to imposition of penalty of ` 25,000, in each assessment year under consideration under section 271A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") which has been upheld by the learned CIT(A) against which the assessee is in appeal.

4.

During the course of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative submitted that there was no requirement of maintaining books of account since she was not the defacto owner of Maria Construction. We had held otherwise in appeal being to 69/Nag./2015, and have clearly concluded that the assessee is the rightful owner. Hence, she cannot escape from the liability from maintaining books of account under section 44A of the Act. The assessee also could not shift the liability for maintaining books of M.B. Travels, where she accepted to be the sole Proprietor which is an undisputed fact. Thus, imposition of penalty of ` 25,000,j in each of the years is justified. Accordingly, we decline to interfere in the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) by dismissing the grounds raised by the assessee for the all the years under assessment.

Smt. Fatema Shoeb Hussain A.Y. 2004–05, 2005–06, 2006–07 2008–09 AND 2009–10

5.

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the A.Y. 2004–05, 2005– 06, 2006–07, 2008–09 and 2009–10, are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 02/09/2024

More judgments on Section 271A

All 701 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →