9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 735X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant when he contended that due to seizure of books by the sales tax authorities, audit of accounts under Section 44AB of the Act got delayed. Additionally Tribunal held that appellant did not file the income tax return voluntarily but it was in response to a notice under Section 148 of the Act. Tribunal confirmed the levy of penalty. We do not find any error or infirmity in the view taken by the Tribunal. No substantial question of law. - I.T.T.A. No.72 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 2-11-2022 - HON BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND HON BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY Mr. A.V. Krishna Kaundinya, Learned Counsel For The Appellant Mr. J.V. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel, Income Tax Department for the Respondent. JUDGM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tting audited accounts, levied penalty of Rs.1,00,000.00 under Section 271B of the Act. 6. In appeal before the first appellate authority i.e., Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), order passed by the assessing officer was affirmed. This led to filing of further appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Tribunal in the order dated 08.04.2005 held as follows: 6. We have heard rival contentions. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that a notice under sec. 148 was issued and it was only in response to that notice that the assessee had filed his return of income. The entertainment tax return of the assessee shows that his turnover is Rs.3,37,70,270. The assessee paid entertainment tax. Subsequent to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommercial 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 the CIT (A) and confirm levy of penalty of Rs.1,00,000. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 8. Thus Tribunal noticed that subsequent to notice issued by the assessing officer for levy of penalty under Section 271B of the Act, appellant had claimed that he was under a genuine belief that his turnover had not crossed Rs.40 lakhs and therefore he need not get his accounts audited. It may be mentioned that the entertainment tax return of the appellant showed his turnover at Rs.3,37,70,270.00. Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
