Case Law Details
Rajesh Agarwal Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata)
We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the assessee in support of the assessee’s case is that the gross receipts of his business as declared by the assessee in his returns of income originally filed for all the four years under consideration under section 139(1) being less than the limit prescribed in section 44AB, he was not required to get his accounts audited as per section 44AB and there would be no question of imposition of penalty under section 271B. However as rightly pointed out by the learned DR from the relevant provisions of section 44AB, every person carrying on business is required to get his accounts audited if his total sales turnover or gross receipts, as the case may be, in business exceeds Rs. 40,00,000/- upto A.Y. 2010-11. What is therefore relevant for the purpose of application of section 44AB is the actual gross receipts or turnover (TO)of the business of the assessee for the relevant year and not the turnover as declared by the assessee in his returns of income filed under section 139(1). In the present case, the gross receipts or turnover of the business of the assessee for all the four years under consideration was found to be actually more than the limit of Rs. 40,00,000/- prescribed in section 44AB and the said quantum having been upheld even in appeal by the Tribunal, we are of the view that the provisions of section 44AB were clearly attracted going by the actual turnover or gross receipts of the assessee’s business.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT
These four appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the four separate orders of Ld. CIT(A) – 10, Kolkata all dated 27th February, 2017 whereby he confirmed the penalties imposed by the A.O. under section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the four years under consideration as under:
