ANITA MEHROTRA,NARENDRA SADAN V. CIT(A), NFAC

ITA 137/ALLD/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Anita Mehrotra, the appellant, who contested a penalty of Rs. 98,524 imposed by the Assessing Officer for not furnishing an audit report within the time specified under section 44AB of the Income Tax Act. The penalty was upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), leading to the current appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal examined various precedents and the submissions from both parties. It was determined that the assessee did not maintain books of account, and thus, the penalty under section 271B was not applicable. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by similar cases and precedents favoring the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 789382 (ITAT-ALLAHABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 04-09-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Mahadev Cold Storage vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Nagesh Consultants vs. DCIT, Arvind Aggarwal vs. Income Tax Officer, CIT vs. S. K. Gupta and Co.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A.K. SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: SHIVAM MEHROTRA

Judgement Text

"I.T.A. No.137/Alld/2024 Assessment Year:2018-19 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH ‘SMC’, ALLAHABAD BEFORE SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.137/Alld/2024 Assessment year:2018-19 Anita Mehrotra Mohalla Alibagh, Hayatganj, Tanda, Ambedkarnagar-224190 PAN:ACEPM6776F Vs. CIT(A), NFAC (Appellant) (Respondent) O R D E R PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, A.M. (A) This appeal vide I.T.A. No.137/Alld/2024 has been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2018-19 against impugned appellate order dated 19/07/2024 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1066831001(1) of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short]. (B) In this case, order under section 271B of the I.T. Act was passed by the Assessing Officer levying penalty amounting to Rs.98,524/-, holding that the assessee had not furnished audit report within the time specified under section 44AB of the Act. The assessee’s appeal against the aforesaid order Appellant by Shri Shivam Mehrotra, C.A. Respondent by Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.137/Alld/2024 Assessment Year:2018-19 2 was dismissed by the learned CIT(A) vide impugned appellate order dated 19/07/2024. The relevant portion of the order of learned CIT(A) is reproduced as under: Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.137/Alld/2024 Assessment Year:2018-19 3 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.137/Alld/2024 Assessment Year:2018-19 4 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.137/Alld/2024 Assessment Year:2018-19 5 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.137/Alld/2024 Assessment Year:2018-19 6 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.137/Alld/2024 Assessment Year:2018-19 7 (C) The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the aforesaid impugned appellate order of learned CIT(A). In the course of appellate proceedings, a paper book containing written submissions was filed from the assessee’s side: Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.137/Alld/2024 Assessment Year:2018-19 8 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.137/Alld/2024 Assessment Year:2018-19 9 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.137/Alld/2024 Assessment Year:2018-19 10 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.137/Alld/2024 Assessment Year:2018-19 11 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.137/Alld/2024 Assessment Year:2018-19 12 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.137/Alld/2024 Assessment Year:2018-19 13 (C.1) Alongwith the written submissions; copies of the decisions in the following cases were also filed from the assessee’s side: (a) ITAT Agra Bench order in the case of Mahadev Cold Storage vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer [2021] 190 ITD 273; [2021] 127 taxmann.com 722, I.T.A. No.41 & 42/Agr/2021, order dated 14/06/2021 (b) ITAT Bangalore Bench order in the case of Nagesh Consultants vs. DCIT, I.T.A. No.32/Bang/2023, order dated 07/03/2023 (c) ITAT Delhi Bench order in the case of Arvind Aggarwal vs. Income Tax Officer, [2025] 137 TCL 174, I.T.A. No.1035/Del/2023, order dated 09/01/2025 (d) Hon'ble Allahabad High Court order in the case of CIT vs. S. K. Gupta and Co. [2010] 322 ITR 86 (All) (C.2) A paper book containing the following particulars was filed from Revenue’s side: Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.137/Alld/2024 Assessment Year:2018-19 14 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.137/Alld/2024 Assessment Year:2018-19 15 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.137/Alld/2024 Assessment Year:2018-19 16 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.137/Alld/2024 Assessment Year:2018-19 17 (C.2.1) The oral submissions made at the time of hearing by learned Departmental Representative were also separately presented in writing, which is reproduced below: Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.137/Alld/2024 Assessment Year:2018-19 18 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.137/Alld/2024 Assessment Year:2018-19 19 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.137/Alld/2024 Assessment Year:2018-19 20 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.137/Alld/2024 Assessment Year:2018-19 21 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.137/Alld/2024 Assessment Year:2018-19 22 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.137/Alld/2024 Assessment Year:2018-19 23 (D) At the time of hearing, learned Counsel for the assessee relied on the aforesaid written submissions and decisions referred to in the foregoing paragraph (C) and (C.1) of this order. The learned Departmental Representative placed reliance on the aforesaid paper book, referred to in foregoing paragraph (C.2) of this order. Further, he made oral submissions, which have also been separately presented in writing, as referred to in goregoing paragraph (C.2.1) of this order. Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.137/Alld/2024 Assessment Year:2018-19 24 (E) We have heard both sides. We have perused materials available on record. The assessee’s claim is that books of account were not maintained by her; therefore penalty under section 271B of the I.T. Act could not have been levied. The claim of Revenue is that the assessee maintained books of account. However, convincing evidence has not been presented by Revenue to prove that the assessee maintained books of account. Although some doubts have been created by Revenue; they fail to establish that the assessee did indeed maintain books of account. The written submissions made from the assessee’s side, as referred to in foregoing paragraph (C) of this order are persuasive. The case of the assessee is also covered in assessee’s favour by decisions of Agra Bench of ITAT in the case of Madadev Cold Storage vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (2021) 190 ITD 273 (Agra/(2021) 127 taxmann.com 722. Moreover, the assessee’s case is also covered in assessee’s favour by decision of Bangalore Bench of ITAT in the case of Nagesh Consultants vs. DCIT (order dated 07/03/2023 in I.T.A. No.32/Bang/2023). Therefore, when order of jurisdictional High Court is in favour of the assessee, we are not persuaded by the Revenue’s contention to take guidance from contrary decisions of non jurisdictional High Court (Karnataka High Court) and non-jurisdictional Bench of ITAT (Ranchi) Bench of ITAT). In any case, decision of Delhi Bench of ITAT in the case of Arvind Aggarwal vs. ITO (DEL-TRIB): (2025) 137 TLC 174 is also in assessee’s favour, relevant portion of which is reproduced below: Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.137/Alld/2024 Assessment Year:2018-19 25 Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.137/Alld/2024 Assessment Year:2018-19 26 (E.1) The assessee’s case is squarely covered by order of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, which is the jurisdictional High Court, in CIT vs. Bisauli Tractors (2007) 165 Taxman 1(Allahabad) wherein it was held that section 271B of I.T. Act is not attracted in a case in which books of account have not been maintained. (E.2) In the case of CIT vs. S. K. Gupta & Co. (All-HC): (2010) 322 ITR 86 also, relevant portion of which is reproduced below; Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has taken a view in favour of assessee: (E.2.1) In view of the foregoing, and respectfully following the precedents in CIT vs. Bisnauli Tractors (supra); and in CIT vs. S. K. Gupta & Co. (supra); the penalty levied under section 271B of the I.T. Act is hereby deleted. (E.3) In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed. (Order pronounced in the open court on 28/11/2025) Sd/. Sd/. (SUBHASH MALGURIA) (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated:28/11/2025 *Singh Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.137/Alld/2024 Assessment Year:2018-19 27 Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. Concerned CIT 4. D.R., I.T.A.T. Printed from counselvise.com "