MUKESH CHOKSI, MUMBAI V. ACIT (OSD)-I CR-7, MUMBAI

ITA 2299/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8466 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-02-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 08-02-2011
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 23-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R S SRIVASTAV
• Assessee Lawyers: DARMESH D SHAH
• Keywords: Bonafide belief; Additional evidence; Accommodation entries; Non compliance
• Section: 133A

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL I BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.K. AGARWAL (JM) AND SHRI RAJENDRA SI NGH(AM) ITA NO.2299/M/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 ITA NO.2300/M/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ITA NO.2301/M/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 SHRI MUKESH CHOKSI THE ACIT (OSD)-2 CR 7 BLOCK H, SHRI SADASHIV COOP HSG.SOC MUMBAI LTD., 6 TH ROAD, GROUND FLOOR SANTACRUZ EAST MUMBAI 400 055. PAN AAAPC7767J APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI DARMESH D.SHAH REVENUE BY : SHRI R.S.SRIVASTAV O R D E R PER RAJENDRA SINGH (AM) THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST COMMON ORDER DATED 8.2.2010 OF CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 , 2006-07 AND 2007-08. THE COMMON DISPUTE RAISED IN ALL THESE APPEALS IS R EGARDING LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS.1 LAC BY THE AO IN EACH OF THE YEARS INVOLVED WH ICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). 2 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THERE WAS A SEARCH CONDUCTED IN CASE OF ONE SHRI HITESH M.BAGTHARIYA ON 28.6.2006 D URING THE COURSE OF WHICH IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 132(4) HE H AD STATED THAT HE WAS AN ENTRY OPERATOR AND HE USED TO ARRANGE CHEQUES OF M/ S.MAHASAGAR SECURITIES PVT. LTD. AND M/S.GOLDSTAR FINVEST PVT. LTD. IT WAS ALSO STATED BY HIM THAT MR. MUKESH CHOWKSHI, THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL, HAD F LOATED VARIOUS COMPANIES INCLUDING HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY FOR PROVIDING ACCOM MODATION ENTRIES TO THE ENTRY SEEKERS. A SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133A WAS ALSO CARRIED OUT ON THE SAME DAY AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF MR. MUKESH CHOWKSHI AND HIS CONCERN M/S. MAHASAGAR SECURITIES PVT. LTD. SHRI CHOWKSHI AT THE TIME OF SURVEY ADMITTED THAT THE FOLLOWING COMPANIES HAD BEEN OPERATING AT THE ADDRESS AND THEY WERE ENGAGED IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES : I) M/S.GOLDSTAR FINVEST (P) LTD. II) M/S.RICHMOND SECURITIES (P) LTD. III) M/S. ALLIANCE INTERMEDIATERIES (P) LTD. IV) M/S.MAHASAGAR SECURITIES (P) LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN A S RICHMOND SECURITIES (P) LTD. V) M/S.ALPHA CHEMIE TRADE AGENCY (P) LTD. VI) M/S.MIHIR AGENCIES (P) LTD. VII) M/S.TALENT INFOWAY (P) LTD. VIII) M/S. BUNIYAD CHEMICALS LTD. IX) MUKESH CHOWKSHI, INDIVIDUAL 3. THE AO NOTED THAT THE MODUS OPERANDI ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT HE FIRST RECEIVED CASH FROM ENTRY SEEKERS WHICH WER E DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF ONE OF THE GROUP COMPANIES AND AFTER DEP OSITING THE CASH IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS, A CHEQUE WAS ISSUED AND THE EQUAL AM OUNT IN FAVOUR OF ENTRY 3 SEEKERS. THE ASSESSEE THUS RETURNED THE CASH OF THE ENTRY SEEKERS IN THE GUISE OF CHEQUE AFTER RETAINING COMMISSION. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED RETURNS OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03, 2006-07 AND 2007-0 8 ON 14.7.2008, 16.4.2008 AND 17.4.2008 RESPECTIVELY. FROM PERUSAL OF THE SAID RETURNS THE AO NOTED THAT THE SAID RETURNS FILED IN FORM NO.2D DID NOT CONTAIN THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO.3CD. DURING TH E ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED COPY OF PROFIT AND L OSS ACCOUNT FOR ALL THE YEARS AND THE SUNDRY RECEIPTS DECLARED IN THESE RETURNS W ERE RS.2,01,84,742/-, RS.2,89,74,988/- AND RS.1,68,51,132/- RESPECTIVELY FOR THE THREE YEARS UNDER REFERENCE. THE AO OBSERVED THAT UNDER THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 44AB THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO GET THE ACCOUNTS AUDITED B Y THE ACCOUNTANT AND FURNISH THE COPY OF THE SAME TO THE AO WITHIN THE S PECIFIED DATE WHICH WAS THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTI ON 139(1) I.E 31 ST DAY OF OCTOBER OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO GET ITS ACCOUNTS AUDITED AND FURNISH A COPY OF THE SAME BEFORE THE SPECIFIED DATE THE AO INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271B OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT BY ISSUING THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE DATED 25.5.2009. I N RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE A SSESSEE FILED A REPLY DATED 9.6.2009 STATING THAT ALL THE TAX AUDIT REPORTS AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS WERE FILED ALONG WITH RETURN OF INCOME AND THEREFOR E NO PENALTY SHOULD BE LEVIED. THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE WHO APPEARED BEFORE THE AO WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE RETURNS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE T O POINT OUT THAT THE RETURNS WERE NOT ACCOMPANIED WITH TAX AUDIT REPORT. THE AUT HORIZED REPRESENTATIVES HOWEVER DID NOT OFFER ANY COMMENTS IN THE MATTER. T HE AO ALSO OBSERVED HAD THE ACCOUNTS BEEN AUDITED THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE P RODUCED A COPY OF THE SAME DURING THE COURSE OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS OR EV EN THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT COULD HAVE PRODUCED THE RECORD TO SHOW T HAT THE ACCOUNTS WERE 4 ACTUALLY AUDITED WHICH WAS NOT DONE IN THIS CASE. T HE AO THEREFORE CONCLUDED THAT THE ACCOUNTS WERE NOT AUDITED AND THE AUDIT RE PORT HAD NOT BEEN FURNISHED WITHIN DUE DATE. HE THEREFORE LEVIED THE PENALTY OF RS.1 LAC IN EACH YEAR UNDER SECTION 271B OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. 4. IN APPEAL THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE WAS ENG AGED ONLY IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES TO THE ENTRY SEEKERS AND WAS EARNING COMMISSION THERE FROM @ 0.15%. THE COMMISSI ON EARNED WAS THEREFORE MUCH LESS THE LIMIT OF RS.40 LACS FOR COM PULSORY AUDIT OF ACCOUNTS. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE BELONGED TO THE ENTRY SEEKERS AND HENCE THE SAME COULD NOT BE REGAR DED AS THE RECEIPT OF THE ASSESSEE. HIS POSITION WAS IDENTICAL TO THAT OF SHA RE BROKER WHO EARNED COMMISSION ON SHARE TRANSACTIONS. THE ASSESSEE REFE RRED TO THE DECISION OF AHMEDABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF R.WADIWA LA & CO. VS ACIT (72 TTJ 34) IN WHICH THE TRIBUNAL HAD HELD THAT TURNOVER OF DEALING IN SHARES MADE ON BEHALF OF THE VARIOUS BUYERS AND SELLERS OF SHARES WAS NOT INCLUDABLE IN THE TURNOVER FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 44AB. IT WAS PO INTED OUT THAT THE AO HIMSELF HAD NOT INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IN TH E EARLIER YEARS AND THAT THE AO HAD NOT ISSUED DEFECT MEMO UNDER SECTION 139(9) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT FOR DEFECT IN THE RETURN. THE ASSESSEE ALSO REFERRED TO THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO.452 DATED 17.3.86 IN WHICH THE BOARD HAD CLARIFIED THAT IN CASE OF KACCHA ARATHIA ONLY THE COMMISSION WAS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PU RPOSE OF DETERMINING THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 44AB. CIT(A) HOWEVER DID N OT ACCEPT THE CONTENTIONS RAISED. IT WAS NOTED BY HIM THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN CONFLICTING STANDS. DURING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE HAD ADMITTED H IS LIABILITY TO GET THE ACCOUNTS AUDITED BUT DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDIN GS A DIFFERENT STAND WAS TAKEN THAT HE WAS NOT LIABLE TO GET THE ACCOUNTS AU DITED. IT WAS OBSERVED BY 5 HIM THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AB WERE VERY C LEAR WHICH REFERRED TO TOTAL SALE, TURNOVER OR GROSS RECEIPTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CEILING OF RS.40 LACS. THUS THE ESSENCE OF SECTION 44AB WAS GROSS RECEIPTS AND NOT THE ELEMENT OF INCOME. HE DISTINGUISHED THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN CASE O F R.WADIWALA & CO. VS ACIT (SUPRA) ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME RELATED TO SHAR E TRANSACTIONS WHICH WERE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM ISSUING ACCOMMODATION BIL LS. MOREOVER IN THAT CASE GENUINENESS OF SHARE TRANSACTIONS WAS NOT IN DOUBT WHEREAS IN THE PRESENT CASE THE TRANSACTION WAS NOT GENUINE. THE TRIBUNAL IN THAT CASE HAD ALSO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AB WAS NOT APPLICABLE WHICH WAS NOT SO IN THE PRESENT CASE. REFERRING TO THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 452 CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT IT DID NOT LA Y DOWN ANY GENERAL PRINCIPLE REGARDING THE CEILING OF RS.40 LACS AND THAT THE SA ME WAS RESTRICTED TO ONLY KACCHA ARATHIA. FURTHER THE CIRCULAR ALSO STATED TH AT EACH TRANSACTION WAS REQUIRED TO BE EXAMINED WITH REFERENCE TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THAT CASE AND NO HARD AND FAST RULES WOULD BE LAID DOWN AS TO WHETHER A PERSON WAS ACTING ONLY AN AGENT OR PRINCIPAL. THERE WAS THEREF ORE VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AB IN THIS CASE AND CIT(A) ACCORDINGLY CO NFIRMED THE PENALTIES LEVIED BY THE AO. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID DECISION THE ASSES SEE IS IN APPEAL IN ALL THE THREE YEARS. 5. BEFORE US THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE REITER ATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT AUDIT HAD BEEN C ONDUCTED AND AUDITED ACCOUNTS HAD BEEN FILED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT IN OTHER YEARS AUDITED ACCOUNTS HAD BEEN FILED AND NO PENALTY HAD BEEN IMPOSED. THE LEARNED AR ALSO FILED AFFIDAVIT DATED 7.2.2011 BOTH FROM THE ASSESSEE AND THE CA SHRI S.M.BHATT AND REQUESTED TH AT THE SAME MAY BE ADMITTED. IN THAT AFFIDAVIT THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT THE CHARTERED 6 ACCOUNTANT MR. BHATT HAD INFORMED HIM THAT AUDIT RE PORTS WERE FILED ALONG WITH RETURNS OF INCOME AND THAT HE HAD CARRIED OUT THE A UDITS FOR ALL THE YEARS. SHRI S.M.BHATT THE CA IN THE AFFIDAVIT HAS STATED THAT H E HAD ISSUED THE AUDIT REPORTS WITHIN THE SPECIFIED TIME AND THE SAME WERE FILED W ITH RETURN OF INCOME FOR ALL THE YEARS. IT HAS ALSO BEEN STATED THAT WHEN HE WAS INFORMED THAT THE AUDIT REPORTS WERE NOT AVAILABLE ON RECORD HE HAD REQUEST ED THE AO TO VERIFY THE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME OR OTHER REPORTS WHERE REPORT MAY HAVE BEEN KEPT AND HAD VOLUNTEERED TO FI LE THE REPORT DURING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. IT WAS REQUESTED THAT THE ADD ITIONAL EVIDENCE SHOULD BE ADMITTED AND THE MATTER MAY BE REFERRED TO AO FOR V ERIFICATION AND FRESH ORDERS. 6. WE HAVE TO FIRST DEAL WITH THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THE PROVISIONS FOR ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AR E CONTAINED IN RULE 29 OF ITAT RULES. AS PER THE SAID RULE THE PARTIES ARE NO T ENTITLED TO PRODUCE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH CAN BE ADMITTED ONLY IF T HE TRIBUNAL REQUIRES ANY DOCUMENT TO BE PRODUCED OR WITNESS TO BE EXAMINED O R AN AFFIDAVIT TO BE FILED TO ENABLE IT TO PASS ORDER OR FOR ANY OTHER SUBSTAN TIAL CAUSE OR IF THE INCOME- TAX AUTHORITIES HAVE DECIDED THE CASE WITHOUT GIVIN G SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE EITHER ON POINTS SP ECIFIED BY THEM OR NOT SPECIFIED BY THEM. IN THIS CASE THERE IS NO CASE MA DE OUT THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY HAD NOT BEEN GIVEN BY THE AUTHORITIES B ELOW TO ADDUCE ANY EVIDENCE. THE AO HAD ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AS TO WHY PENALTY SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR NON COMPLIANCE OF PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 44AB. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO BEEN CONFRONTED WITH THE ORIGINAL RETURNS FILE D WHICH SHOWED THAT NO AUDITED ACCOUNTS HAD BEEN FILED. THE ASSESSEE HAD A LSO OPPORTUNITY TO FILE ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE OR ANY AFFIDAVIT BEFORE THE CIT (A) WHICH HAD ALSO NOT BEEN 7 DONE. WE HAVE ALSO NO DIFFICULTY IN DECIDING THE IS SUE ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD BECAUSE FILING OF AUDITED ACCOU NTS COULD BE EASILY VERIFIED FROM THE RECORDS WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN GONE INTO BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY ACKNOWLEDGMEN T RECEIPT ETC EVEN AT THIS STAGE. EVEN IF THESE AFFIDAVITS ARE ADMITTED I N OUR VIEW THESE ARE NOT GOING TO SERVE ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN DELAYING THE PROCEE DINGS AS THESE ONLY CONTAIN THE POINTS MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE A DDITIONAL EVIDENCES ARE THEREFORE NOT ADMITTED. 7. WE HAVE THEREFORE TO DECIDE THE APPEALS ON THE B ASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 44AB IN CASE THE TOTAL SALES/ TURNOVER/ GROSS RECEIPTS OF THE BUSINESS EXC EEDS RS.40 LACS THE ASSESSEES ARE REQUIRED TO GET THE ACCOUNTS AUDITED COMPULSORILY AND FURNISH THE SAME TO THE AO WITHIN THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RE TURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139(1). IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED RETURNS OF INCOME BUT NO AUDITED ACCOUNTS OR AUDIT REPORT HAD BEEN ENCLOSED WITH THE RETURN. THE AO HAD THEREFORE INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTI ON 271B. THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN THE MATTER. THE A O HAD SHOWN THE ORIGINAL RETURNS TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO HOW THE AU DIT REPORTS WERE CONTAINED THERE IN BUT THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT OFFER ANY COMMENTS. THE LEARNED DR HAS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT THAT IN THE RETURN OF IN COME THERE IS COLUMN FOR MENTIONING THE DOCUMENTS ENCLOSED WITH THE RETURNS AND HAD THE AUDIT REPORTS BEEN ENCLOSED WITH THE RETURNS, THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE EASILY POINTED OUT THE SAME. MOREOVER THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE ALSO PRODUCED RECORDS OF THE AUDITOR TO SHOW THAT ACCOUNTS WERE A CTUALLY AUDITED WHICH HAS ALSO NOT DONE. IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT THE A UDITORS WERE ALSO THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE PE NALTY PROCEEDINGS. BUT THEY 8 DID NOT EVEN FILE THE COPY OF THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT REPORTS EVEN DURING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. CONSIDERING THE ENTIRETY O F FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WE HAVE TO HOLD THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAD RIGH TLY CONCLUDED THAT NO AUDITED ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT REPORTS HAD BEEN FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO NOTE THAT UNDER SECTION 44AB THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS W ERE REQUIRED TO BE FURNISHED TO THE AO WITHIN 31 ST OCTOBER OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND EVEN IF THE ASSESSEES CONVERSION WAS TO BE ACCEPTE D FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENTS THAT THE AUDIT REPORTS HAD BEEN FILED WITH THE RETU RN OF INCOME THESE HAD BEEN FILED MUCH AFTER THE DUE DATE I.E. 31 ST OCTOBER OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THEREFORE IN OUR VIEW THE ASSESSEE HAD COMMITTED DE FAULT FOR WHICH PENALTY WAS LEVIABLE. 8. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO RAISED SOME LEGAL ISSUES BEFORE CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT LIABLE FOR AUDIT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS AKIN TO THE SHARE BROKERS AND THEREFOR E ONLY THE COMMISSION SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE AN D NOT THE PURCHASE/ SALE VALUE OF SHARES. IN OUR VIEW THE CLAIM HAD BEEN RIG HTLY REJECTED BY THE CIT(A). A SHARE BROKER ONLY FACILITATES THE SHARE TRANSACTI ON OF THE CLIENTS THROUGH THE STOCK EXCHANGES AND THE PAYMENT/ RECEIPTS FOR PURCH ASE/ SALE OF SHARES ARE MADE THROUGH THE STOCK EXCHANGES. IN CASE OF THE AS SESSEE HE HAD HIMSELF RECEIVED THE MONEY THROUGH THE CONCERNS IN HIS CONT ROL AND IN EXCHANGE THEREOF HAD ISSUED CHEQUES. THEREFORE THE TRANSACTI ON WAS PRINCIPLE TO PRINCIPLE BASIS AND NOT AS AGENT. THEREFORE IN OUR VIEW IN CA SE OF THE ASSESSEE GROSS AMOUNTS RECEIVED IN CONNECTION WITH ENTRY BUSINESS HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSES OF CEILING OF RS.40 LACS UNDER SECTION 44AB. THE CIRCULAR NO.452 OF THE CBDT RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DISTIN GUISHABLE AS THE SAME RELATED TO KACHHA ARITHIA. THE DECISION OF THE TRIB UNAL IN CASE OF R.WADIWALA & 9 CO. VS ACIT (SUPRA) IS OBVIOUSLY DISTINGUISHABLE AS THE SAME RELATED TO SHARE TRANSACTIONS AND NOT ACCOMMODATION BILLS. IT MAY A LSO BE POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED ANY GROUND THAT HE WAS NOT LIABLE FOR AUDIT UNDER SECTION 44AB. THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ARE THEREFORE REJECTED. 9. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION AND FOR THE REASONS GIVEN EARLIER WE AGREE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW TH AT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS COVERED UNDER SECTION 44AB AND THE ACCOUNTS WER E REQUIRED TO BE AUDITED AND AUDIT REPORTS WERE REQUIRED TO FURNISHED WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED DATE WHICH HAD NOT BEEN DONE. PENALTIES WERE THEREFORE LEVIABL E AND THE SAME HAD BEEN RIGHTLY LEVIED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IS ACCORDINGLY UPHELD. 10. IN THE RESULT ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE S TAND DISMISSED. 11. THE DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 1 1.02.2011. SD/- SD/- ( D.K. AGARWAL ) (RAJEN DRA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE : 11.02.2011 AT :MUMBAI COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A), MUMBAI CONCERNED 4. THE CIT, MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED 5. THE DR I BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI // TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI ALK 10