CIT v. Bisauli Tractors

299 ITR 219High Court2008#1407 most cited

What is CIT v. Bisauli Tractors authority for?

If an assessee has not maintained books of accounts, the question of getting those accounts audited under Section 44AB does not arise, and therefore, a penalty under Section 271B for failure to get accounts audited cannot be levied. Non-maintenance of books is separately punishable under Section 271A.

81

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,854 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Bisauli Tractors · penalty under Section 271B · Section 271A · Section 44AB · non-maintenance of books of accounts · failure to get accounts audited · audit not possible without books · deletion of penalty · levy of penalty · section 44AA

Also reported as

165 Taxmann 1

Sections most often in play

Section 271BSection 44ABSection 44AASection 271ASection 1872Section 142(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Issues it is cited on

section 28(1)penalty under section 271bsection 44aasection 271bdeletion of penaltysection 18section 271asection 44asection 44absection 44penalty u/s 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particulars

Judgments citing CIT v. Bisauli Tractors

Bhawani Shankar Gupta, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1) Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 43/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

…he Tribunal. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in upholding the order of the CIT(A) cancelling the penalty imposed under s. 271B of the Act”. We further place our reliance on the decision delivered in the case of CIT Bareilly v Bisauli Tractors – (2008) 299 ITR 219, the H’ble Allahabad High Court held that: “14. Therefore, Section 27IB of the Act is not attracted in a case where no account has been maintained and instead recourse under Section 271A can be taken. 15. In view of the foregoing discussions we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against th…

Rakesh Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(4), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 330/JPR/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 217BSection 271B

…the Tribunal. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in upholding the order of the CIT(A) cancelling the penalty imposed under s. 271B of the Act”. We further place our reliance on the decision delivered in the case of CIT Bareilly v Bisauli Tractors – (2008) 299 ITR 219, the H’ble Allahabad High Court held that: 9 M/s Rakesh Kumar Agarwal vs. ITO “14. Therefore, Section 27IB of the Act is not attracted in a case where no account has been maintained and instead recourse under Section 271A can be taken. 15. In view of the foregoing discussions we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., in f…

Lokesh Kumar Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO WD-4(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 278/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.

For Appellant: Ms Suhani Meharwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271B

…ance of books of account u/s 271A and no penalty can be imposed u/s 271B for violation of section 44AB requiring ITA Nos.6696 & 6645/Del/2014 audit of accounts. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in CIT vs. Bisauli Tractors (2008) 299 ITR 219 (All). The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court reiterated the similar view in CIT and Anr. Vs. S.K. Gupta and Co. (2010) 322 ITR 86 (All) by holding that requirement of getting the books of account audited can arise only where the books of account are maintained. In the absence of the maintenance of books of account, there can be no penalty u/s 271B of…

Mr. Manoj Kumar Gour, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD-4(3), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 247/JPR/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

…he Tribunal. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in upholding the order of the CIT(A) cancelling the penalty imposed under s. 271B of the Act”. We further place our reliance on the decision delivered in the case of CIT Bareilly v Bisauli Tractors – (2008) 299 ITR 219, the H’ble Allahabad High Court held that: “14. Therefore, Section 27IB of the Act is not attracted in a case where no account has been maintained and instead recourse under Section 271A can be taken. 15. In view of the foregoing discussions we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against th…

Naresh Gopaldas Bhojwani, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-5(2)(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 598/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: The Final Hearing Of The Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh L. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. D.R
Section 144Section 271BSection 44A

…income. Since the assessee is not required to maintain any books of accounts, there is evidently no requirement of audit u/s 44AB of the Act as well. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to page 74 of Paper-Book in the case of Bisauli Tractors 299 ITR 219 (All), in which it was held that if a person has not maintained any books of accounts, the question of audit doe not arise. Hence, no penalty can be imposed u/s 271B of the Act. I.T.A No. 598/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No. 5 Shri Naresh Gopaldas Bhojwani vs. ITO 6. In response, the Ld. DR submitted that it is evidently not clear whether the ass…

M/S Gurukrupa Developers, Godhra vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-1, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 41/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 41/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 M/S Gurukrupa Developers, D.C.I.T., Mahavir Complex, Vs. Central Circle-1, Opp. Fci Godown, Vadodara. Sapana Road, Godhra-389001. Pan: Aaifg8293P

For Appellant: Shri Ketan H. Shah, with Shri Aman K. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Deelip Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 142Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271BSection 27ISection 44Section 44A

…o initiate the penalty under section 271A of the Act but the same has not been done so. In holding so, we find support Asstt. Year 2012-13 5 and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT versus Bisauli Tractors reported in 299 ITR 219 wherein it was held as under: “7. It may be mentioned here that separate penalty has been provided for non-maintenance of accounts, i.e., under section 271A of the Act and for not getting the accounts audited and not furnishing the audit report i.e., under section 271B of the Act. In the present case, the Assessing Officer did not impose penalty…

Anuraj Singh Sabarwal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 31(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 390/KOL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.390/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Anuraj Singh Sabarwal..........................................…………………….……Appellant P.4A, C.I.T. Road, Kolkata-700019. [Pan:Avcps7765H] Vs. Ito, Ward-31(2), Kolkata…………..…...............……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri K. M. Roy, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 15, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 15, 2021 Hearing Through Video Conferencing Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.06.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit’] Confirming Penalty Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S 271A As Well As 271B Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That Having Initiated Penalty U/S 271A For Non-Maintenance Of Books, Simultaneous Invocation Of Section 271B Is Bad In Law. 2. That Once Having Been Established That No Book Of Accounts Are Maintained, Conduct Of Audit Is An Impossibility & Hence Initiation Of Penalty Is Unsustainable & Hence Liable To Be Quashed. 3. That The Appellant Reserves The Right To Raise Additional Grounds.” Though The Registry Has Pointed Out That The Appeal Is Time Barred, However, In 2. View Of The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Miscellaneous Application No.665 Of 2021 In Smw(C) No.3 Of 2020, The Period Of Filing Appeal During The Covid-19 Pandemic Is To Be Excluded For The Purpose Of Counting The Limitation Period. In View Of This, This Appeal Is Treated As Filed Within The Limitation Period.

Section 147Section 2Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

…ce of books of account u/s. 271A and no penalty can be imposed u/s. 271B for violation of section 44AB requiring ITA Nos. 6696 &6645/Del/2014 audit of accounts. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in CIT vs. Bisauli tractors (2008) 299 ITR 219 (All). The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court reiterated the similar view in CIT and Anr. Vs. S. K. Gupta and Co. (2010) 322 ITR 86 (All) by holding that requirement of getting the books of account audited can arise only where the books of account are maintained. In the absence of the maintenance of books of account, there can be no penalty u/s. 271B o…

V Seetharaman, Villupuram vs. ACIT, Villupuram Circle, Villupuram

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 229/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.229/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271BSection 273BSection 44Section 44A

…does not arise and the provision of section 44 AB do not get violated in a case where accounts have not been maintained at all and therefore the penal provisions of section 271 B of the I. T. Act would not apply (Commissioner of income Tax Vs Bisuali Tractors 299 ITR 219 (All).” 4. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the A.O has noted as under: “The assessee-quoted the above-mentioned order of Hon. Allahabad High Court as relevant to His case. It is a case of undisputed non-maintenance of Books of Accounts. Emphasis is placed on this point. The relevant sentence from Para l of the Judgement is pr…

Sanjay Tyagi, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6874/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 6864/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6865/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6866/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6867/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6868/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6869/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6870/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6871/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6872/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6873/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6874/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Shri Sanjay Tyagi, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of C/O- Shri Sankalp Anil Sharma, Adv. Income Tax, Central C-4/129, 1St Floor, Safdarjung Circle-1, Development Area, New Delhi New Delhi-110016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aeipt1282R Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Saxena, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H.K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

…ed the books of accounts the appropriate provision under which penalty proceedings can be initiated is under section 271A of the Act which recourse has also been taken by the assessee as would appear from the order of the Tribunal.” • CIT Vs Bisauli Tractors 299 ITR 219 (All.) after hearing the counsel for the revenue in an ex-parte order held, “that separate penalty has been provide for non-maintenance of accounts, i.e., under section 271A of the Act and for no getting the accounts audited and not furnishing the audit report i.e., under section 271B of the Act. In the present case, the Assessing Officer did not…

Sanjay Tyagi, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6873/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 6864/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6865/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6866/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6867/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6868/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6869/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6870/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6871/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6872/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6873/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6874/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Shri Sanjay Tyagi, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of C/O- Shri Sankalp Anil Sharma, Adv. Income Tax, Central C-4/129, 1St Floor, Safdarjung Circle-1, Development Area, New Delhi New Delhi-110016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aeipt1282R Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Saxena, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H.K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

…ed the books of accounts the appropriate provision under which penalty proceedings can be initiated is under section 271A of the Act which recourse has also been taken by the assessee as would appear from the order of the Tribunal.” • CIT Vs Bisauli Tractors 299 ITR 219 (All.) after hearing the counsel for the revenue in an ex-parte order held, “that separate penalty has been provide for non-maintenance of accounts, i.e., under section 271A of the Act and for no getting the accounts audited and not furnishing the audit report i.e., under section 271B of the Act. In the present case, the Assessing Officer did not…

Sanjay Tyagi, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6872/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 6864/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6865/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6866/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6867/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6868/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6869/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6870/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6871/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6872/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6873/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6874/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Shri Sanjay Tyagi, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of C/O- Shri Sankalp Anil Sharma, Adv. Income Tax, Central C-4/129, 1St Floor, Safdarjung Circle-1, Development Area, New Delhi New Delhi-110016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aeipt1282R Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Saxena, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H.K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

…ed the books of accounts the appropriate provision under which penalty proceedings can be initiated is under section 271A of the Act which recourse has also been taken by the assessee as would appear from the order of the Tribunal.” • CIT Vs Bisauli Tractors 299 ITR 219 (All.) after hearing the counsel for the revenue in an ex-parte order held, “that separate penalty has been provide for non-maintenance of accounts, i.e., under section 271A of the Act and for no getting the accounts audited and not furnishing the audit report i.e., under section 271B of the Act. In the present case, the Assessing Officer did not…

Sanjay Tyagi, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6871/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 6864/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6865/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6866/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6867/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6868/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6869/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6870/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6871/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6872/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6873/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6874/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Shri Sanjay Tyagi, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of C/O- Shri Sankalp Anil Sharma, Adv. Income Tax, Central C-4/129, 1St Floor, Safdarjung Circle-1, Development Area, New Delhi New Delhi-110016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aeipt1282R Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Saxena, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H.K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

…ed the books of accounts the appropriate provision under which penalty proceedings can be initiated is under section 271A of the Act which recourse has also been taken by the assessee as would appear from the order of the Tribunal.” • CIT Vs Bisauli Tractors 299 ITR 219 (All.) after hearing the counsel for the revenue in an ex-parte order held, “that separate penalty has been provide for non-maintenance of accounts, i.e., under section 271A of the Act and for no getting the accounts audited and not furnishing the audit report i.e., under section 271B of the Act. In the present case, the Assessing Officer did not…

Sanjay Tyagi, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6870/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 6864/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6865/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6866/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6867/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6868/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6869/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6870/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6871/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6872/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6873/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6874/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Shri Sanjay Tyagi, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of C/O- Shri Sankalp Anil Sharma, Adv. Income Tax, Central C-4/129, 1St Floor, Safdarjung Circle-1, Development Area, New Delhi New Delhi-110016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aeipt1282R Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Saxena, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H.K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

…ed the books of accounts the appropriate provision under which penalty proceedings can be initiated is under section 271A of the Act which recourse has also been taken by the assessee as would appear from the order of the Tribunal.” • CIT Vs Bisauli Tractors 299 ITR 219 (All.) after hearing the counsel for the revenue in an ex-parte order held, “that separate penalty has been provide for non-maintenance of accounts, i.e., under section 271A of the Act and for no getting the accounts audited and not furnishing the audit report i.e., under section 271B of the Act. In the present case, the Assessing Officer did not…

Sanjay Tyagi, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6869/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 6864/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6865/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6866/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6867/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6868/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6869/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6870/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6871/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6872/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6873/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6874/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Shri Sanjay Tyagi, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of C/O- Shri Sankalp Anil Sharma, Adv. Income Tax, Central C-4/129, 1St Floor, Safdarjung Circle-1, Development Area, New Delhi New Delhi-110016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aeipt1282R Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Saxena, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H.K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

…ed the books of accounts the appropriate provision under which penalty proceedings can be initiated is under section 271A of the Act which recourse has also been taken by the assessee as would appear from the order of the Tribunal.” • CIT Vs Bisauli Tractors 299 ITR 219 (All.) after hearing the counsel for the revenue in an ex-parte order held, “that separate penalty has been provide for non-maintenance of accounts, i.e., under section 271A of the Act and for no getting the accounts audited and not furnishing the audit report i.e., under section 271B of the Act. In the present case, the Assessing Officer did not…

Sanjay Tyagi, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6868/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 6864/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6865/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6866/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6867/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6868/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6869/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6870/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6871/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6872/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6873/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6874/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Shri Sanjay Tyagi, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of C/O- Shri Sankalp Anil Sharma, Adv. Income Tax, Central C-4/129, 1St Floor, Safdarjung Circle-1, Development Area, New Delhi New Delhi-110016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aeipt1282R Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Saxena, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H.K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

…ed the books of accounts the appropriate provision under which penalty proceedings can be initiated is under section 271A of the Act which recourse has also been taken by the assessee as would appear from the order of the Tribunal.” • CIT Vs Bisauli Tractors 299 ITR 219 (All.) after hearing the counsel for the revenue in an ex-parte order held, “that separate penalty has been provide for non-maintenance of accounts, i.e., under section 271A of the Act and for no getting the accounts audited and not furnishing the audit report i.e., under section 271B of the Act. In the present case, the Assessing Officer did not…

Sanjay Tyagi, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6867/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 6864/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6865/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6866/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6867/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6868/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6869/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6870/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6871/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6872/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6873/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6874/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Shri Sanjay Tyagi, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of C/O- Shri Sankalp Anil Sharma, Adv. Income Tax, Central C-4/129, 1St Floor, Safdarjung Circle-1, Development Area, New Delhi New Delhi-110016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aeipt1282R Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Saxena, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H.K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

…ed the books of accounts the appropriate provision under which penalty proceedings can be initiated is under section 271A of the Act which recourse has also been taken by the assessee as would appear from the order of the Tribunal.” • CIT Vs Bisauli Tractors 299 ITR 219 (All.) after hearing the counsel for the revenue in an ex-parte order held, “that separate penalty has been provide for non-maintenance of accounts, i.e., under section 271A of the Act and for no getting the accounts audited and not furnishing the audit report i.e., under section 271B of the Act. In the present case, the Assessing Officer did not…

Sanjay Tyagi, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6866/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 6864/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6865/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6866/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6867/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6868/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6869/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6870/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6871/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6872/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6873/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6874/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Shri Sanjay Tyagi, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of C/O- Shri Sankalp Anil Sharma, Adv. Income Tax, Central C-4/129, 1St Floor, Safdarjung Circle-1, Development Area, New Delhi New Delhi-110016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aeipt1282R Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Saxena, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H.K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

…ed the books of accounts the appropriate provision under which penalty proceedings can be initiated is under section 271A of the Act which recourse has also been taken by the assessee as would appear from the order of the Tribunal.” • CIT Vs Bisauli Tractors 299 ITR 219 (All.) after hearing the counsel for the revenue in an ex-parte order held, “that separate penalty has been provide for non-maintenance of accounts, i.e., under section 271A of the Act and for no getting the accounts audited and not furnishing the audit report i.e., under section 271B of the Act. In the present case, the Assessing Officer did not…

Sanjay Tyagi, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 1, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6865/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 6864/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6865/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6866/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6867/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6868/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6869/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6870/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6871/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6872/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 6873/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 6874/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Shri Sanjay Tyagi, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of C/O- Shri Sankalp Anil Sharma, Adv. Income Tax, Central C-4/129, 1St Floor, Safdarjung Circle-1, Development Area, New Delhi New Delhi-110016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aeipt1282R Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Saxena, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. H.K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

…ed the books of accounts the appropriate provision under which penalty proceedings can be initiated is under section 271A of the Act which recourse has also been taken by the assessee as would appear from the order of the Tribunal.” • CIT Vs Bisauli Tractors 299 ITR 219 (All.) after hearing the counsel for the revenue in an ex-parte order held, “that separate penalty has been provide for non-maintenance of accounts, i.e., under section 271A of the Act and for no getting the accounts audited and not furnishing the audit report i.e., under section 271B of the Act. In the present case, the Assessing Officer did not…

Sh. Mohit Garg, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3355/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 3355/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Mohit Garg, Vs Income Tax Officer, Prop. Laddu Gopal Overseas, Ward-63(3), 5555/58, Basti Har Phool Singh, New Delhi Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ayepg4314M Assessee By : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.06.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 271ASection 271BSection 44A

…ed the books of accounts the appropriate provision under which penalty proceedings can be initiated is under section 271A of the Act which recourse has also been taken by the assessee as would appear from the order of the Tribunal.” • CIT Vs Bisauli Tractors 299 ITR 219 (All.) after hearing the counsel for the revenue in an ex-parte order held, “that separate penalty has been provide for non-maintenance of accounts, i.e., under section 271A of the Act and for no getting the accounts audited and not furnishing the audit report i.e., under section 271B of the Act. In the present case, the Assessing Officer did not…

Smt. Mukti Roy, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-2(40, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 113/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

Section 133(6)Section 148Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

…ce of books of account u/s. 271A and no penalty can be imposed u/s. 271B for violation of section 44AB requiring ITA Nos. 6696 &6645/Del/2014 audit of accounts. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in CIT vs. Bisauli tractors (2008) 299 ITR 219 (All). The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court reiterated the similar view in CIT and Anr. Vs. S. K. Gupta and Co. (2010) 322 ITR 86 (All) by holding that requirement of getting the books of account audited can arise only where the books of account are maintained. In the absence of the maintenance of books of account, there can be no penalty u/s. 271B o…