Case Law Details
Brij Gopal Chauhan Vs. ITO (Delhi High Court)
Impugned order records that appellant-assessee, in the return of income for the assessment year 2010-2011, had declared a turnover of Rs.9.50 crores. Substantial loans and capital had been introduced. However, the appellant-assessee contends that these figures were incorrect and wrong and false declaration on oath were made in the income tax return on advice given by a Chartered Accountant. This was contradicted and controverted by the Chartered Accountant in his statement, who had stated that he had not examined books of accounts. Reasoning given by the Tribunal is plausible and cogent, and is not required to be repeated. The facts reveal blatant and brazen defiance of law and Section 44AB of the Act. The contention of the appellant-assessee that he had not maintained books of accounts etc. and, therefore, penalty under Section 271B of the Act for failure to get books of accounts audited, is unacceptable. Appellant-assessee, in making this submission, contradicts his earlier version that the books of accounts had been misplaced. Even otherwise, failure to maintain the books of accounts was a lapse and a failure to comply with statutory provisions. This argument in the context of the present case must be rejected.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGMENT
The appellant, Brij Gopal Chauhan, impugns order dated 22.05.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal, for short) upholding levy of penalty under Section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961(Act, for short).
2. Appellant, an individual, deals in sale/purchase of paints and sanitary ware.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
