No tax audit in one proprietorship firm-ITAT deleted penalty u/s 271B as when no accounts was maintained, assessee was not be expected to get them audited.
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 3166 (2019) (10) ITAT
Important case law relied upon by the parties:
Shri Rajeshbhai Hirabhai Patel Vs. ITO
Shri Udayshankar Narendraprasad Vs. ITO
Paragkumar Mafatlal Shah Vs. ITO
Mukesh G. Jaswani Vs. ITO
Gurinder Kahlon Vs. ITO
Tax audit in case of two proprietary business
In the instant case, the sole grievance of the assessee was the order passed by the CIT(A) in confirming the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for failure to get accounts audited u/s 44AB of the Act.
The assessee was running two proprietorship concerns. For the relevant Assessment Year, the assessee had filed return of income along with tax audit report under section 44AB with regard to only the account of one proprietorship firm.
However, during the course of assessment proceedings, it came to the notice of the AO that the assessee was proprietor of another firm which was having a bank account. Qua the second firm, the assessee had not got account audited u/s 44AB of the Act.
The AO passed the assessment order under section 143(2) of the Act. Later, he initiated penalty proceedings for not getting the accounts audited with regard to second proprietorship concern. Ultimately, after hearing the assessee, he imposed a minimum penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/-.
The CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee. Â
On the other hand, the Department contended that for exonerating one penalty, the assessee cannot take plea of another default. On the one hand, the assessee had not disclosed the accounts to the department, and on the other hand the assessee was trying to absolve herself from levy of penalty under the argument that the accounts were not maintained.
The Tribunal opined that for not maintaining accounts, penalty is required to be imposed under section 271A. The AO ought to have initiated penalty under this section. But once the assessee had been submitting that no accounts had been maintained for the concern, then the assessee could not be expected to get them audited.
The Tribunal found the argument of the assessee as plausible. Accordingly, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee and delete penalty.
Download Full Judgment Click Here >>
- Cash deposit in demonetisation held exempt assessee being resident of Arunachal Pradesh
- ICAI bans seven Chartered Accountants being guilty of professional misconduct
- ITAT deleted addition made on presumption – there cannot be loss in restaurant business
- Rent of plot taxed as income from other sources in absence of proof of structure on it
- ​Application invited for special Public Prosecutors in Income Tax Department NER Region
addition u/s 68 ca misconduct cash deposit in bank cbdt circular CBDT Instruction cbdt notification cbdt order cbdt press release cgst circular cgst notification cit revision 263 concealment penalty covid-19 custom circular demonetisation due date extension e-way bill faq GST circular GST Council Meeting gst faq gstn advisory gstr-1 GSTR-3B GST rates IBBI ibc icai announcement itat mca circular MCA notification order u/s 119 penalty 271(1)(c) penalty u/s 271(1)(c) Press Release reasons recorded reopening 148 Reopening us 147 Search & Seizure sebi circular sebi regulations transfer and postings unexplained cash credits validity of notice u/s 148 Withdrawal of 2000 500 Bank Notes
