Case Law Details
Yuvraj Singh Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
ITAT find that reasonable cause exists for failure of the assessee to get his account audited in respect of previous year relevant to Assessment Year 2011-12 in question. The assessee has claimed turnover in business to the tune of Rs.58,42,500/-which is below the threshold of Rs.60 lac applicable at the relevant time. The assessee has filed a return taking shelter of Section 44AD of the Act and declared 8% on the turnover on estimated basis as provided under the presumptive taxation scheme of Section 44AD of the Act. The Assessing Officer in the course of assessment has displaced the turnover declared by the assessee by including the cash deposits reflected as liability by the assessee in the relevant assessment year. Thus, when seen with the fact that the quantum litigation has come to an end under ‘Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2020’ (VSV) and there is no final judicial finding available regarding the correctness of turnover declared by the assessee, the benefit of doubt must go to the assessee. The income has been assessed and the tax has been collected without protracted litigation. Hence, the stale cause in the form of penalty under Section 271B should be shunned in the peculiar circumstances.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
The captioned appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)XXXIII, New Delhi (‘CIT(A)’ in short) dated 22.03.2019 in relation to penalty proceedings initiated under Section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2011-12.
2. As per the grounds of appeal, the assessee has challenged the imposition of penalty of Rs.77,462/- under Section 271B of the Act for alleged violation of Section 44AB of the Act.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
