9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 735X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tanding Counsel, Income Tax Department for the Respondent. JUDGMENT: (PER THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN) Heard Mr. A.V. Siva Karthikeya, learned counsel representing Mr. A.V. Krishna Kaundinya, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. J.V. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel, Income Tax Department for the respondent. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the assessee as the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs.1,00,000.00 by the assessing officer? 5. Appellant is an assessee under the Act and was a Bookie at Hyderabad Race Club. For the assessment year 1994-95, he filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs.5,82,490.00. Assessing officer noted that appellant had not complied with the provisions of Section 44AB of the Act i.e., by submitting audited accounts, levied penalty of Rs.1,00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enuine belief that his turnover had not crossed Rs.40 lakhs and he need not get his accounts audited. While saying so, he filed additional evidence stating that due to seizure of books by the Sales tax authorities, the audit of accounts under sec. 44AB got delayed. This is a contradictory stand. As the assessee bona fide believed that his accounts need not be audited, he would not have taken a p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he audit got delayed. Even otherwise, no copy of letter from the Sales tax authorities is filed before us. The two letters dated 28-8-1996 and 25-3-1997 are of the assessee written to the Commercial Tax Officer, and are self-serving. 8. In view of the fact that the assessee himself filed entertainment tax return and paid tax on a turnover of Rs.3,37,70,270, we are inclined to upheld the order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... voluntarily but it was in response to a notice under Section 148 of the Act. 9. In view of above, Tribunal confirmed the levy of penalty. 10. We do not find any error or infirmity in the view taken by the Tribunal. No question of law arises out of the aforesaid order of the Tribunal dated 08.04.2005, not to speak of any substantial question of law. 11. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Howe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
