M/S THAKUR PRE-PREEKSHA COACHING & TRAINING SANSTHAN,KANGRA vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), SOLAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1371/CHANDI/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 March 2018AY 2008-092 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes. The penalty under Section 271B was levied ex-parte by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) for non-audit of accounts, despite the assessee claiming exemption.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order confirming a penalty under Section 271B for not getting accounts audited. The assessee claimed deduction under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) and argued they were not required to get accounts audited.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271B is leviable when the assessee claims deduction under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) and whether adequate opportunity of being heard was provided.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271B,Section 250(6),Section 12A(1)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH’B’, CHANDIGARH

Before: SMT. DIVA SINGH & SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR

Hearing: 19/03/2018Pronounced: 27/03/2018

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH’B’, CHANDIGARH

BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.1371/Chd/2017 Assessment Year: 2008-09

M/s Thakur Pre-Preeksha Coaching Vs. The ITO(Exemption) & Training Sansthan, Nahan Pukhur Solan, H.P. Tehsil Dehra, Kangra (H.P.)

PAN No. AABAT6599F

(Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal Revenue By : Sh. Manjit Singh

Date of hearing : 19/03/2018 Date of Pronouncement : 27/03/2018

ORDER PER B.R.R. KUMAR A.M.

The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of

the Ld. CIT(A), Palampur(H.P.) dt. 29/05/2017.

2.

In the present appeal assessee has raised the following grounds:

1.

That on the facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the Worthy CIT(A) in her order dated 29.05.2017 has erred in passing that order in contravention of the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2 That on law, facts and circumstances of the case, the Worthy CIT(A) has erred confirming the action of Ld. AO of imposing penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- u/s 271B even when the appellant filed ITR claiming deduction u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) and therefore he was not required to gel his accounts audited u/s 44 AB.

3.

That on law, facts and circumstances of the case, the Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO of imposing penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- u/s 271B even when the books of the appellant had been rejected by the Ld. AO.

4.

That on law, facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant was not granted adequate opportunity of being heard by the Worthy CIT(A) and also by the Ld. AO and therefore the orders of both the lower authorities deserves to be set-aside.

3.

The appeal is barred by 17 days. The assessee filed an affidavit stating

that the delay was due to compilation of various documents to file appeal

which took considerable time. Hence the delay is condoned.

4.

The penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- under section 271B has been levied ex-parte

by the Assessing Officer for not getting the books of accounts audited.

5.

The Ld. CIT(A) has also confirmed the penalty order ex-parte on the

grounds that the Income & Expenditure Account has not been produced

before the Assessing Officer. It was held that

“the assessee was required to get his account audited under section 12A(1)(b)

as its total income without giving effect to the provisions of Section 11 & 12 of

the Act exceeded the maximum amount not chargeable to Income Tax “

6.

Before us, during the hearing the Ld. AR has given a oral undertaking that,

provided an opportunity, he would participate in the proceedings before the

Ld. CIT(A).

Hence, we deem it fit to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to

pass a speaking order after taking into consideration the submissions made by

the assessee. And we believe that the assessee would not abuse the trust

reposed on them.

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court.

Sd/- Sd/-

(DIVA SINGH) (B.R.R.KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 27/03/2018 AG Copy to: The Appellant, The Respondent, The CIT, The CIT(A), The DR

More judgments on Section 271B

All 1,993 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →