9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 695X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of appeal amongst which the only issue emanates for our consideration is as to whether the CIT(A) justified in confirming the penalty imposed by the AO u/s. 271B of the Act. 4. We note that the assessee is a firm and civil contractor. According to the AO, the assessee has shown gross receipt of Rs. 36.33 crores and liable to be audited the books of account u/s. 44AB of the Act. The AO initiated penalty proceedings for not getting the books of account audited as per requirement of law. The assessee submitted its reply which is reproduced by the AO at page 2 of the penalty order. On perusal of the same, we note that the assessee had undertaken the job of toll collections from Buldhana Urban Credit Co-op. Society, Buldhana and the toll coll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 (Mad.). The ld. DR relied on the order of CIT(A). 6. After hearing both the parties, we note that the provisions u/s. 44AB of the Act mandates every person carrying on business requires audit of books, if turnover or gross receipts exceeds Rs. 45 lacs. As discussed above, the assessee has shown gross receipt as Rs. 36.33 crores, the provisions u/s. 44AB are applicable to the facts of the case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. (supra) held the liability to pay penalty does not arise merely upon proof of default and that penalty cannot be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of its obliga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On perusal of the assessment order, we note that the assessee failed to prove the identity furnishing of PAN of the said sub-contractors. Accordingly, the AO disallowed an amount of Rs. 11,15,462/-. Before the CIT(A), it is noted that the assessee submitted details of four contractors with PAN and Aadhar and Election Card. Considering the same allowed the expenditure to an extent of Rs. 6,59,992/- and confirmed the addition of Rs. 4,55,470/- (Rs.11,15,462/- - Rs. 6,59,992/-). Before us, no evidence whatsoever furnished in support of remaining four sub-contractors regarding identity, ledger, PAN and Aadhar Card. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and it is justified. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
