Case Law Details
Mohd Javed Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
In Mohd Javed vs. Income Tax Officer (ITO), the Delhi ITAT addressed an appeal concerning a penalty under Section 271B of the Income Tax Act, imposed due to unreported turnover. Javed, a commission agent for the Gujarat Milk Cooperative Federation, reported a nominal turnover of ₹4.01 lakh in his tax return, while cash deposits of ₹4.3 crore appeared in his bank account. The revenue authorities treated these deposits as turnover, thereby requiring an audit under Section 44AB, and subsequently imposed a penalty for non-compliance. Javed contended that the cash deposits represented transactions handled on behalf of the principal (Gujarat Milk Cooperative Federation), where he earned a commission based on a predetermined margin rather than sales. He argued that the deposited amounts should not be considered his own turnover, as he was simply an intermediary. The ITAT examined the case details, noting that Javed’s earnings were solely commission-based, as supported by the cooperative’s rules and records. Accepting that the cash deposits did not constitute personal turnover, ITAT concluded that Javed was not subject to audit under Section 44AB. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the penalty levied under Section 271B, ruling in favor of the assessee.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A)-3 , National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 29.03 .2022.
2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1. The appellate order framed is not justified in the eyes of law.
2. The learned CIT (Appeal) failed to appreciate the facts placed on the record during the course of appellate proceedings that the cash/receipts deposited in regular bank account were not a sale in the hands of appellant, it were related to the principal concern as by virtue of an agreement the appellant was to be remunerated with nominal fixed commission.
3. That the penalty appealable was deserved to kept in abeyance where the request was made that in quantum’ s appeal is mainly on the same issue that the appellant was only a mediator in respect of receipt appearing in Bank Further the principal concern had also confirmed such facts.
4. In the circumstances and fact of the case the appellant was not liable U/ s 44AB so the learned CIT (Appeal) was not justified in confirming the penalty U/ s 271B”
3. Suffice to say that owing to the cash deposits of 4 .3 Cr. in the bank account and the sales turnover of Rs.4.01 lacs in the ITR the revenue levied penalty u/s 271B considering the deposits of Rs.4 . 3 Cr. as turnover of the assessee.
4. Having gone through the entire material on record, we find that the assessee is a commission agent of Gujarat Milk Cooperative Federation having milk booth at Darya Ganj, Delhi and earning a commission margin @ 55% to 12. 16% per unit on butter milk to paneer. The same are as under:
5. Since, the assessee only a commission agent and earns margin as prescribed in Gujarat Milk Cooperative Federation rules as reflected in column 5 above, we hold that the penalty levied u/ s 271B obliterated.
6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 03 /03/2023.
Author Bio
