Case Law Details
Devki Nandan Bindal Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
The Board has clarified that the turnover does not include the sales affected on behalf of the principals and only the gross commission has to be considered for the purposes of section 44AB where the agents act only as an agent of his constituent and never acts as a principal. In the instant case also, it is an admitted position that the assessee is only acting as a commission agent on behalf of the constituent. In view of such clarification, only the commission income is required to be reckoned for the purposes of determination of his obligation under Section 44AA of the Act as well as Section 44AB of the Act.
The commission being turnover/receipt for the purposes of 44AA and 44AB, which is far below the threshold limit prescribed for the relevant assessment year, the assessee can not treated as assessee in default in terms of S. 271A and S. 271B of the Act. The assessee thus has demonstrated reasonable cause for failure to maintain books of account as well as compliance of Section 44AB of the Act in term of Section 271B of the Act.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
have been heard together and are being The captioned appeals have been filed by the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XVI, New Delhi (‘CIT(A)’ in short) of even date 14.06.2019 arising from respective penalty orders passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271A and 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AYs 2010-11.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
