Case Law Details
Rakesh Kumar Agarwal Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur)
ITAT Jaipur held that once the penalty is levied for non-maintenance of book of accounts, there cannot be further default for not getting the same audited as required u/s 44AB of the Act and therefore, the penalty levied u/s 271B is not justified.
Facts- During the course of assessment proceedings, AO observed that the assessee is required to keep and maintain books of account u/s. 44AA and the total sales turnover is exceeding to the prescribed limit for getting the audited books of accounts by a chartered accountant u/s. 44AB. The ld. AO further noted that the assessee has neither kept and maintained books of account and evidence of maintenance of books of account has not been furnished for verification of the claims. Thus, the assessing officer has initiated penalty proceeding u/s. 271A as the assessee has failed to keep & maintain books of account u/s. 44AA and penalty 271B were initiated to get audited the books of account u/s. 44AB.
As the penalty proceeding were initiated pursuant to the order of the assessment ultimately vide order dated 06.01.2022 penalty for an amount of Rs. 79,639/- was ordered to be levied u/s. 271B of the Act by the ld. AO.
Aggrieved from the order of the assessing officer the assessee has preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the levy of the penalty holding that the assessee is not covered under the any reasonable clause and since the assessee has not complied the statutory provisions, the action of levy of penalty by the AO was confirmed.
Please become a member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
