MUKESH PATHAK,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 15-03-2023, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2011-12 raising therein following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. That the NFAC has further erred in law and facts in confirming penalty u/s 271B amounting to Rs.47,800/- whereas the assessee was not required to maintain books of account and therefore audit of books of accounts does not arise. The assessee has not committed any default and if any default has been committed it is purely of technical nature. Penalty may be deleted.

2 MUKESH PATHAK VS ITO, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR 2. That the NFAC has further erred in law and facts in confirming the penalty u/s 271B. Penalty is imposable on the basis of sales, turnover gross receipt whereas the assessee has done intraday transaction of shares on STT has been paid.’’ 2.1 Apropos Ground Nos. 1 and 2 of the assessee, the facts as emerges from the order of the ld. CIT(A) are as under:- ‘’5. Decision: 5.1 The statement of facts, grounds of appeal and the submission made by the appellant have been perused carefully. At the outset, it is clear that the income of the appellant is below taxable limit. Further, the income of the appellant has also been assessed u/s 144 of the Act at Rs.1,63,020/- which is also below the taxable limit. The assessing Officer has mentioned the same in the assessment order and the extract is as under: ‘’2 The assessee has shown income from other sources. During assessment proceedings Shri Devendra Upadhyaya CA and AR of the assessee filed reply to the notices issued and furnished details/evidences in respect of income shown by the assessee in return of income filed on 12.3.2018. On perusal of the details and Form No. 10DB filed by the assessee/AR, it is found that the assessee sold equity share in a company of a unit of an equity oriented fund of Rs. 84,96,825, but the assessee has not maintained books of account and he has not get his accounts audited. Therefore, vide order sheet entry dated 28.9.2018 the assessee is required to show cause as to why penalty proceedings u/s 271A and 271B may not be initiated in his case. The assessee did not file any reply to the show cause notice issued to him; therefore, it is assumed that the assessee has no objection in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271A and 2718. Therefore penalty proceedings u/s 271A and 2718 are initiated in this case. After considering the facts of the case and reply