Surajmal Parsuram Todi v. CIT

Abu Mansur Ali, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-Xviii, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 93/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Abu Mansur Ali -Vs.- D.C.I.T., Central Circle-Xviii, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Ajwpa 0693 E] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.M.Surana, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, Jcit. Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2016. Date Of Pronouncement : 10.08.2016. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.11.2013 Of C.I.T.(A)-Central-Ii, Kolkata Relating To Ay 2009-10. 2. In This Appeal The Assessee Challenged The Order Of Cit(A) Whereby The Cit(A) Confirmed The Order Of Ao Imposing The Penalty On The Assessee U/S 271B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act).

…n there was no question of getting the books of account audited u/s 44AB of the Act. Under the circumstances, no penalty should have been imposed by him u/s 271B of the Act., The reliance is placed on the decision in the case of Surajmal Parsuram Todi Vs CIT, 222 ITR 691 (Gauhati): CIT vs. S. K. Gupta & Co., 322 ITR 86 (All); K.V.ramchandran vs. DCIT, 32 Taxmann.com 200 (Cochin) and Ram Prakash Puri vs. ACIT, 77 ITD 210(Pune). It is further submitted by the Ld. A.R. that since the appellant had only worked as a middleman in arranging the purchase of land and earning commission/price difference in between, the cos…