Case Law Details
Shri Satya Prakash Mundra Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur)
The addition made by the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings on the basis of unaccounted sale cannot be regarded as the turnover for the purpose of Section 44AB of the act because the documents relied upon by the A.O. are neither the part of books of account nor would substitute the books of account or constitute the books of account of the assessee regularly maintained. Therefore, the books of account maintained by the assessee in regular course of business cannot be substituted by the material gathered by the Assessing Officer in the course of some survey in the case of third party though the said material may be relevant evidence for making the addition to the income of the assessee. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances and following the earlier decision of this Tribunal, the penalty levied U/s 271B of the Act is deleted.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29/06/2016 of ld. CIT(A), Ajmer arising from the penalty order passed U/s 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) for the A.Y. 2011-12. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
“1. On the facts and circumstance of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.31,607/- levied by Ld. AO u/s 271B of the Income Tax Act, when the turnover declared by assessee was merely Rs.24,80,995/-, i.e. below the limit prescribed u/s 44AB of the Act. Appellant prays the penalty so levied may please be deleted.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
