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
…of account were maintained by the assessee. Under such circumstances, a question arises as to whether any penalty can be imposed u/s. 271B for not getting the books of account audited. The Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in Suraj Mal Parasuram Todi vs. CIT (1996) 222 ITR 691 (Gau) has held that where no books of account are maintained, penalty should be imposed for non-maintenance 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…
