Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (5) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2018 (5) TMI 1985 - AT - Income Tax


Issues Involved:
1. Levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Levy of penalty under Section 271A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Levy of penalty under Section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Levy of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c):

The assessee was engaged in the business of electronics items through two entities, M/s Krishna Electronics and M/s Jharkhand Electric & Electronics. During the assessment proceedings, it was found that the assessee had not disclosed the business carried out under M/s Jharkhand Electric & Electronics in the return of income. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of ?4,80,500 to the assessee's income based on estimated turnover and net profit rate, and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) for concealing particulars of income.

The assessee did not appeal against the additions, and during penalty proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee's submissions were general and unconvincing. Consequently, a penalty of ?73,022 was levied. The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty, and the assessee appealed to the ITAT.

The ITAT noted that the assessee failed to report business receipts in the original return and only disclosed them during scrutiny. The explanation that the omission was inadvertent did not inspire confidence. Thus, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was confirmed.

2. Levy of Penalty under Section 271A:

The AO observed that the total turnover of the assessee's business exceeded ?60 lakhs, making it mandatory to maintain books of account under Section 44AA. The assessee failed to do so, and a penalty of ?25,000 was levied under Section 271A. The CIT(A) confirmed this penalty, stating that no reasonable cause was shown for not maintaining the books.

The ITAT upheld the penalty, noting that the turnover exceeded the threshold and the assessee did not provide any reasonable cause for non-maintenance of books of accounts.

3. Levy of Penalty under Section 271B:

The AO also noted that the assessee failed to get the books of account audited as required under Section 44AB, given the turnover exceeded ?60 lakhs. A penalty of ?51,341 was levied under Section 271B. The CIT(A) confirmed this penalty, referencing the decision in S.J. Agarwal & Co. Vs ITO.

Before the ITAT, the assessee argued that the penalty under Section 271B should not be levied as the books of account were not maintained, citing decisions from various courts. The ITAT agreed, noting that once the penalty for non-maintenance of books under Section 271A was upheld, it was impossible to audit non-existent books. Thus, the penalty under Section 271B was deleted.

Conclusion:

The ITAT confirmed the penalties under Sections 271(1)(c) and 271A due to the assessee's failure to report business receipts and maintain books of account. However, the penalty under Section 271B was deleted, recognizing the impossibility of auditing non-maintained books. The appeals for penalties under Sections 271(1)(c) and 271A were dismissed, while the appeal for the penalty under Section 271B was allowed.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates