Sh. Ashok Kumar Sachdeva Prop., UDHAMPUR V. The Income tax Officer, UDHAMPUR

ITA 630/ASR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 63020914 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 23-10-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: K R JAIN
• Section: 44AD

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.630(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008-09 PAN :AEGPS7153A SH. ASHOK KUMAR SACHDEVA PROP. VS. THE INCOME TAX O FFICER, M/S. SACHDEV ELECTRONICS CO. UDHAMPUR. KARNI MARKET, COURT ROAD, UDHAMPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:SH.K.R.JAIN, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY:SH.MAHAVIR SINGH, DR DATE OF HEARING: 05/02/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:25/02/2014 ORDER PER BENCH ; THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF CIT(A), JAMMU DATED 06.08.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2008-09 FOR CONFIRMING THE PENALTY IMPOSED UNDER SECTION 271B O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( IN SHORT, THE ACT) ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE ITO, UDHAMPUR IMPOSING A PENALTY OF RS.21,820/- U/S 271B IS WRONG, ILLEGAL AND AGAINST FACTS AND ITA NO.630(ASR)/2013 2 LIKEWISE ORDER OF CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED WHILE CON FIRMING THE SAME. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW, ON FACTS A ND WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE RELEVANT LEGAL PROVISIONS PROCEEDE D TO IMPOSE THE PENALTY ARBITRARILY. 3. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE LD. ITO AND CITA) HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RE TURN AS PER LEGAL ADVICE RECEIVED FROM THE COUNSEL AND CANNOT BE PENA LIZED UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AO IMP OSED PENALTY OF RS.21,820/- ON THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO GET HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AUDITED AND TO FURNISH A REPOR T OF SUCH AUDIT AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 44AB OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPUTED THE INCOME UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AD AND 44AF OF THE ACT AND IS NOT MAINTAINING ANY ACCOUNTS AND AS SUCH THE ASSESSEE IS NOT REQUIRED TO GET HIS ACCOUNTS AUDITED, AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT EXCEED RS. 40 LACS. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITT ED THAT PENALTY U/S 271B OF THE ACT, IS NOT LEVIABLE WHERE THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNT ARE NOT BEING MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER PLACED RELIA NCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS . BISAULI TRACTORS REPORTED IN 299 ITR 218 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD TH AT SECTION 271B IS NOT ITA NO.630(ASR)/2013 3 ATTRACTED IN A CASE WHERE NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND INSTEAD RECOURSE UNDER SECTION 271A CA N BE TAKEN. 3.1. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER PLACE D RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS TO SUPPORT HIS CASE: I) ASSTT. CIT & ANR. VS. DR. K. SATISH SHETTY (200 9) 310 ITR 366 (KARN.) II) CIT VS. HEROS PUBLICITY SERVICES (2001) 248 ITR 256 (BOM) 4. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE O RDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, ESPECIALLY THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) [IN PARA 3 OF CIT(A)S ORDER], WHICH IS WEL L REASONED AND PLAUSIBLE AND THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE SA ME AND PENALTY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED. WE CONCUR WITH THE VIEWS O F THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSSEE HAS COMPUTED HIS INCOME UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AD AND 44AF AND HAS NOT MA INTAINED ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND AS SUCH THE ASSESSEE IS NOT REQUIRED TO GET HIS ACCOUNTS AUDITED. THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BISAULI TRACTORS (SUPRA) FULLY SUPPORTS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ITA NO.630(ASR)/2013 4 CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS ESTABLISHED HIS CASE BY GIVING PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION AND THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY SO LEVIED BY THE A.O. ACCOR DINGLY, THE PENALTY SO LEVIED AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS DIRECTED TO BE CANCELLED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25TH FEBRUARY, 2014. SD/- SD/- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 25TH FEBRUARY, 2014 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:SH. ASHOK KUMAR SACHDEVA, UDHAMPUR 2. THE ITO, UDHAMUR 3. THE CIT(A), JAMMU 4. THE CIT, JAMMU 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR