Badri Narayan Choudhary Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur)
No Books, No Audit – ITAT strikes down 271B Penalty- No Audit without Books: When Books Don’t Exist, Audit Obligation Falls -Tribunal Quashed Unjust Penalty u/s 271B
In this case there were two orders of penalty one related to 271A & other of 271B but the facts were same as decided by. CIT(A). Assessee has already settled the dispute of levy of penalty as per 271A under the DTVSV Act 2020 & Assessee did not prefer the appeal against the levy of 271B penalty. AO had levied the penalty because Assessee has made transaction through commodity transaction amounting to Rs. 7,33,80,90,800/- & thereby Assessee violated the provision of section 44AB & thereby liable for penalty u/s. 271B . As the gross receipt was Rs. 1,28,02,922/- Assessee was liable for penalty for Rs. 64,014/-.
Assessee contended that once Assessee has accepted the fact that they have not maintained the proper books of accounts & not disputed of levy of penalty u/s 271A there cannot be a case for levy of penalty u/s. 271B .
Tribunal noted that it is not disputed by the revenue that Assessee has already settled the dispute regarding levy of penalty u/s 271A wherein the levy of penalty was for maintenance of books of accounts. Tribunal observed that once it is established that Assessee has not maintained the books of account how the same can be audited. Tribunal upheld that once Assessee accepted to have not maintained the books of account there cannot be a case to levy the penalty of not getting those books of accounts audited.. Penalty u/s 271B was quashed.
