What is Surajmal Parsuram Todi v. CIT authority for?

A penalty under Section 271B for failure to get accounts audited cannot be levied if a penalty under Section 271A has already been imposed for non-maintenance of books of account.

How many judgments cite Surajmal Parsuram Todi v. CIT?

114 judgments on BharatTax cite Surajmal Parsuram Todi v. CIT (222 ITR 691), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Surajmal Parsuram Todi v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 271B, Section 44AB, Section 271A, Section 44AA, Section 148, Section 144.

Surajmal Parsuram Todi v. CIT (222 ITR 691)

Shri Sohan Nath, Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer, Ajmer

ITA 888/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Roshanta Meena (JCIT)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

…on a higher turnover the assessee has also filed audit report in compliance of the provisions of Section 44AB of the Act. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in case of Surajmal Parsuram Todi vs. CIT 222 ITR 691. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR has submitted that it is a clear case of default committed by the assessee for not filing of the audit report along with return of income. Further, it is not a case of inadvertence or bonafide mistake but the assessee has deliberately not disclosed the income from liquor business and only when the AO issued a s…

Shahnaz Khanam, Jhalawar vs. Income Tax Officer, Jhalawar

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

ITA 38/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 May 2018AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Suhani Mamodia (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai (DCIT)

Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

…s 271B for not getting accounts audited. The ld. AR has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of CIT Vs. Bisauli Tractors 299 ITR 219 as well as the decision of Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in case of Surajmal Parsuram Todi vs. CIT 222 ITR 691. The ld. AR has also relied upon the decision of Delhi Benches of the Tribunal in case of Nirmal Kumar Jain vs. ITO in ITA No. 6696 & 6645/Del/2014 dated 02.03.2016. Hence, the ld. AR has submitted that when the assessee has not maintained the regular books 3 Shahnaz Khanam vs. ITO of account and the penalty was imposed U/s 271A of the Act th…

Smt. Roshni Devi, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the levy of penalty under section 271B is hereby deleted

ITA 953/JPR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: Shri N.S. Vyas (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Roy (DCIT)

Section 271(1)(c)

…amount deposited in the bank account. In support, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of CIT Vs Bisauli Tractors (2008) 299 ITR 219 (All) and decision of Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in case of Rajmal Parsuram Todi (1996) 222 ITR 691 (Gau) whereas it was held that penalty u/s 27IB for failure to get accounts audited u/s 44AB is not attracted where books of accounts were not maintained by the assessee. 16. On the other hand, the ld DR has vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below. 17. We have heard the rival contentions and pursued the material available on re…

Smt. Roshni Devi, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the levy of penalty under section 271B is hereby deleted

ITA 952/JPR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: Shri N.S. Vyas (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Roy (DCIT)

Section 271(1)(c)

…amount deposited in the bank account. In support, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of CIT Vs Bisauli Tractors (2008) 299 ITR 219 (All) and decision of Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in case of Rajmal Parsuram Todi (1996) 222 ITR 691 (Gau) whereas it was held that penalty u/s 27IB for failure to get accounts audited u/s 44AB is not attracted where books of accounts were not maintained by the assessee. 16. On the other hand, the ld DR has vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below. 17. We have heard the rival contentions and pursued the material available on re…

Smt. Roshni Devi, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the levy of penalty under section 271B is hereby deleted

ITA 951/JPR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: Shri N.S. Vyas (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Roy (DCIT)

Section 271(1)(c)

…amount deposited in the bank account. In support, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of CIT Vs Bisauli Tractors (2008) 299 ITR 219 (All) and decision of Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in case of Rajmal Parsuram Todi (1996) 222 ITR 691 (Gau) whereas it was held that penalty u/s 27IB for failure to get accounts audited u/s 44AB is not attracted where books of accounts were not maintained by the assessee. 16. On the other hand, the ld DR has vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below. 17. We have heard the rival contentions and pursued the material available on re…

Sh. Kamal Kishore Mahajan, Chamba vs. ITO Dalhousie at, Banikhet

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1282/CHANDI/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. P.N. AroraFor Respondent: Smt. Chanderkanta

Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

…hey cannot be audited. Moreover, when penalty has been imposed for non maintenance of books of accounts, further penalty for non auditing cannot be imposed. He has relied on the decision of High Court of Gauhati in the case of Surajmal Parsuram Todi Vs. CIT (222 ITR 691), decision of High Court of Allahabad in the case of CIT Vs. Bisauli Tractors (299 ITR 219), and decision of High Court of Allahabad in the case of CIT and ANR Vs. S.K. Gupta & Co. (322 ITR 86). 6. Ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and argued that since the case laws have been brought to the notice for the first time the m…

Rajesh Agarwal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 36(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 842/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. Nos. 839 To 842/Kol/2017 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Rajesh Agarwal..............................…………………………………..................................Appellant C/O S.L. Kachar, Advocate, 86, Canning Street, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan : Adhpa 3042 Q] Ito Ward 36(1) Kolkata……………………………………………….............................Respondent 110, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107 Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri A Bhattacharjee, Addl Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 11, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 13, 2018 Order

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

…for all the four years under consideration, no penalty under section 271B could be imposed for violation of section 44AB. In support on this contention, he has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Suraj Mal Parasuram Todi vs CIT 222 ITR 691 as well as the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs Bisauli Tractors 299 ITR 219 wherein it was held that the requirement of getting books of account audited can arise only where the books of account are maintained and where no books of account are maintained, penalty should be imposed for non- maintenance of books of ac…

Rajesh Agarwal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 36(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 841/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. Nos. 839 To 842/Kol/2017 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Rajesh Agarwal..............................…………………………………..................................Appellant C/O S.L. Kachar, Advocate, 86, Canning Street, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan : Adhpa 3042 Q] Ito Ward 36(1) Kolkata……………………………………………….............................Respondent 110, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107 Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri A Bhattacharjee, Addl Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 11, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 13, 2018 Order

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

…for all the four years under consideration, no penalty under section 271B could be imposed for violation of section 44AB. In support on this contention, he has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Suraj Mal Parasuram Todi vs CIT 222 ITR 691 as well as the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs Bisauli Tractors 299 ITR 219 wherein it was held that the requirement of getting books of account audited can arise only where the books of account are maintained and where no books of account are maintained, penalty should be imposed for non- maintenance of books of ac…

Rajesh Agarwal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 36(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 840/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. Nos. 839 To 842/Kol/2017 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Rajesh Agarwal..............................…………………………………..................................Appellant C/O S.L. Kachar, Advocate, 86, Canning Street, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan : Adhpa 3042 Q] Ito Ward 36(1) Kolkata……………………………………………….............................Respondent 110, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107 Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri A Bhattacharjee, Addl Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 11, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 13, 2018 Order

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

…for all the four years under consideration, no penalty under section 271B could be imposed for violation of section 44AB. In support on this contention, he has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Suraj Mal Parasuram Todi vs CIT 222 ITR 691 as well as the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs Bisauli Tractors 299 ITR 219 wherein it was held that the requirement of getting books of account audited can arise only where the books of account are maintained and where no books of account are maintained, penalty should be imposed for non- maintenance of books of ac…

Rajesh Agarwal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 36(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 839/KOL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. Nos. 839 To 842/Kol/2017 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Rajesh Agarwal..............................…………………………………..................................Appellant C/O S.L. Kachar, Advocate, 86, Canning Street, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan : Adhpa 3042 Q] Ito Ward 36(1) Kolkata……………………………………………….............................Respondent 110, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107 Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri A Bhattacharjee, Addl Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 11, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 13, 2018 Order

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

…for all the four years under consideration, no penalty under section 271B could be imposed for violation of section 44AB. In support on this contention, he has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Suraj Mal Parasuram Todi vs CIT 222 ITR 691 as well as the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs Bisauli Tractors 299 ITR 219 wherein it was held that the requirement of getting books of account audited can arise only where the books of account are maintained and where no books of account are maintained, penalty should be imposed for non- maintenance of books of ac…

Shri Nirmal Kumar Joshi, Kishangarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Kishangarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 73/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Kataria (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Ray (JCIT)

Section 133ASection 145(3)Section 271BSection 44Section 44A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 73/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year: 2011-12 Nirmal Kumar Joshi cuke ITO, Vs. C/o Rajasthan Marble, Ward-1, Makran Road, Madanganj, Kishangarh Kishangarh, LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No. AGCPJ 8574 C vihykFkhZ@Assessee izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 74/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Krishan Murari Agarwal cuk…

Yogendra Singh Shekhawat, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1001/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Anil Sharma (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai (DCIT)

Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

…once the Assessing Officer has concluded that the assessee has not maintaining books of account then there cannot be a question of getting them audited. The ld AR relied on the decision of the Gauhati High court in the case of Surajmal Parasram Todi Vs. CIT 222 ITR 691, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has dealt such situation and held that where no books of account were maintaining, the levy of penalty U/s 271B was held ITA 1001/JP/2016_ 3 Yogendra Singh Shekhawat Vs ITO erroneous. The ld AR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bisauli Tractors (2008) 299 ITR 219 wher…