TARANJEET SINGH ALAGH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-33(2), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 787/DEL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 June 2023AY 2015-165 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 held that if the assessee was not found guilty of non-maintenance of books of accounts (penalty under Section 271A was dropped), then imposing a penalty for non-auditing of accounts under Section 271B was not justified. The penalty was directed to be deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerned a penalty imposed under Section 271B for not complying with Section 44AB (audit requirements). The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271A for non-maintenance of books of accounts.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271B is sustainable when penalty for non-maintenance of books of accounts under Section 271A was dropped.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271B,Section 44AB,Section 271A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘H’: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI M. BALAGANESH

For Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Shah Singh, Sr. DR
Hearing: 07.06.2023Pronounced: 20.06.2023

ITA No:- 787/Del/2020 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Sh. Taranjeet Singh Alagh, The Income Tax Officer, C-25, Shopping Complex, Vs. Ward-33(2), Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. New Delhi-110057. PAN No: AAAPA0852A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Gurpreet Shah Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 07.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 20.06.2023 ORDER

PER KUL BHARAT, JM

1.

This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-34, New Delhi vide order dated 17.09.2019 for Assessment Year 2015-16. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. That the Learned Assessing Officer has failed to appreciate the legal & factual position involed in the appellant’s case.

2. That the assessment order is replete with prejuidicial observations which are either unfounded or not suncepitble to any adverse conclusion.

3. That the authority below has failed to appreciate the legal and factual position involved in the Appellant’s case. Page 1 of 5 ITA No.- 787/Del/2020 Taranjeet Singh Alagh 4. That no opportunity was afforded to the appellant to lead evidence on the issues involved.

5.

That the provisions of section 271B are not attracted in the facts and circumstances of this case.

6.

That the order is against law and facts of the case and merits to be cancelled.”

2.

At the time of hearing, no one attended the proceeding. It is seen from the record that no one attended the hearing. The notices sent by the Registry have been duly served and the acknowledgment due has been placed on record. Under these facts, the appeal is taken up for hearing in the absence of assessee and materials available on records.

2.1 Apropos to the grounds of appeal, however, it is seen from the record that a letter dated 24.03.2023 has been placed on record. The contents of the same are reproduced as under for the sake of clarity:

ITA No.- 787/Del/2020 Taranjeet Singh Alagh

3.

On the other hand Ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below.

4.

We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. The contention of the assessee is that the assessment was framed on returned income ignoring the capital loss of Rs. 45,38,988/- it was not claimed by the assessee in his return of income. The Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings U/s 271A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for non maintaining the books of accounts, as well as U/s 271B of the Act for not complying with the provisions of section 44AB of the Act. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the penalty proceedings initiated U/s 271A of the Act was dropped but the penalty U/s 271B of the Act was imposed and same was sustained by the Ld. CIT(A). It is further submitted that the appellant was not treated in default U/s 271A of the Act for non- Page 3 of 5 ITA No.- 787/Del/2020 Taranjeet Singh Alagh maintenance of books of accounts, than how the provision of Section 271B of the Act would be attracted in the absence of books of accounts.

4.1 We have given our thoughtful consideration to the present appeal, admittedly, the penalty was initiated U/s 271A of the Act for non-maintenance of books of accounts as well as U/s 271B for not complying with the provisions of section 44AB of the Act regarding the auditing of the account. The penalty for non-maintenance on books of accounts was dropped but the penalty for not getting the accounts audited is sustained. We find merits into the contentions of the assessee that if he was not guilty of non maintaining of books of accounts, the presumption would be that he shall not required to maintain the books of accounts. Under these undisputed facts, imposing penalty for non auditing of books of accounts is not justified. Therefore, we hereby direct the Assessing authority to delete the penalty.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 20th June, 2023.

More judgments on Section 271B

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →