Shailesh K. Chauhan, Kukavav (Moti), RAJKOT-GUJARAT V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), AMRELI

ITA 76/RJT/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0312 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 7 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 27-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income; Reasonable cause
• Section: 143(3); 145; 144

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT [CONDUCTED THROUGH E COURT AT AHMEDABAD] BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 60 AND 76/RJT/2014 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 SHAILESH K. CHAUHAN PROP. OF GOPAL TRADERS OPP: BUS STAND KUKAVAV (MOTI), DIST. AMRELI. VS THE ITO, WARD-2(4) AMRELI. ! / (APPELLANT) '# ! / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS REVENUE BY : SHRI PRAVEEN VERMA, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING : 01/08/2018 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11 /09/2018 O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER : BY THESE TWO APPEALS, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGES ORDERS OF LD.CIT(A)-IV, RAJ KOT OF EVEN DATED I.E. 20.11.2013 VIDE WHICH THE LD.CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED O RDERS OF THE LD.AO PASSED UNDER SECTIONS 143(3) AND 271B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. SINCE ASSESSEE BEING SAME, AND FACTS IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE INTER-RELATED, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, WE DISPOSE OF BOTH THESE APPEALS BY COMMON ORDER. 2. FIRST WE TAKE UP ITA NO.60/RJT/2014. 3. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN NINE GROUNDS OF AP PEAL, BUT IN BRIEF HIS GRIEVANCE REVOLVES AROUND A SINGLE ISSUE VIZ. T HE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED ITA NO.60 AND 76 /RJT/2014 - 2 - IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.5,58,260/- AFTER UPHOL DING REJECTION OF BOOK RESULTS UNDER SECTION 145 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 19 61. 4. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF HEARING, THE LD.COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WHICH HAS BEEN TAKEN ON R ECORD. 5. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 4.3.2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.1,2 1,680/-. THE ASSESSEE HAD AT THE RELEVANT TIME WAS ENGAGED IN THE TRADING OF PAN MASALA , CIGARETTE ETC. ON WHOLE SALE BASIS. ON SCRUTINY OF THE ACCOUNTS IT REVEALED TO THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO UNDERTAKEN BUS INESS OF SELLING MOBILE RE-CHARGE VOUCHERS. HE HAS NOT DISCLOSED TH IS TRANSACTION TO THE DEPARTMENT. THE TURNOVER IN THIS TRANSACTION WAS R S.1.25 CRORES. THUS, FINDING THESE DEFECTS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAIN TAINED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD.AO REJECTED BOOK RESULTS AND ESTIM ATED PROFIT IN MOBILE VOUCHERS BY 5 PERCENT OF THE TURNOVER. IN THIS W AY, HE MADE ADDITION OF RS.5,58,260/-. ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS CON FIRMED THIS ADDITION BY RECORDING THE FOLLOWING FINDING: 3. I HAVE CONSIDERED CAREFULLY, THE SUBMISSIONS MA DE BY THE APPELLANT AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER. ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S. 143(3) WHEN PASSED, IT-IS NOTICED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS TRANSACTED A BUSINESS OF RS. 1,24,65,192 ON ACCOUNT OF TRADING IN THE MOBILE VOUCHERS APART FROM HIS OTHER BUSINESS ACTIV ITIES OF WHOLESALE TRADING IN PAN MASALA, GUTKHA & CIGARETTES ETC. IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT, HE HAS SHOWN ONLY THE BU SINESS PERTAINING TO PAN MASALA, GUTKHA & CIGARETTES BUT NOT PERTAINING TO THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN MOBILE VOUCHERS. THE TURNOVER FROM THE B USINESS OF PAN MASALA/GUTKHA/CIGARETTES WAS SHOWN AT RS.21,20,440 AGAINST WHICH THE GROSS PROFIT OF 2,07,100 WAS DECLARED. THEREFORE, T HE SALE TRANSACTIONS AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,24,65,192 PERTAINING TO MOBILE V OUCHERS REMAINED UNDISCLOSED FROM THE DEPARTMENT. NOTWITHSTANDING TH E FACT THAT THE APPELLANT FOR THE FIRST TIME ON 20.12.2010 DURING T HE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAS ADMITTED AND DISCLOSED THE SALE TRA NSACTIONS PERTAINING ITA NO.60 AND 76 /RJT/2014 - 3 - TO MOBILE VOUCHERS WHICH HITHERTO KEPT OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MORE THAN REASONABLE IN COMPU TING PROFITS FROM THE UNACCOUNTED BUSINESS OF TRADING IN MOBILE VOUCHERS BY TAKING THE MARGIN ONLY AT 5% OF THE TOTAL RECEIPTS AND FURTHER GIVEN A DEDUCTION OF RS.65,000 TO MEET THE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES. THE NET ADDITION OF RS.5,58,260 ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED BUSINESS OF M OBILE VOUCHERS IS REASONABLE IS THEREFORE MADE, WHICH COMES TO 4.47% ON THE UNRECORDED SALES OF MOBILE VOUCHERS AT RS. 1,24,65,192. THE AR GUMENT OF AR, THAT THE NET PROFIT MARGIN OF ONLY 0.5% BE ADOPTED ON THE SA LE RECEIPTS FROM MOBILE VOUCHERS IS BASELESS AS THE SAME IS NOT SUPPORTED B Y ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. IN FACT, THE PROFIT MARGIN WOULD BE ON A HIGHER SIDE IN A BUSINESS LIKE THIS, WHERE NOTHING IS ACCOUNTED FOR. I THEREFORE UPHOLD THE ADDITION OF RS.5,58,260 ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED P ROFITS FROM THE UNACCOUNTED BUSINESS OF TRADING IN MOBILE VOUCHERS. 6. IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, THE ASSESSEE HAS ONL Y SUBMITTED THAT ESTIMATION OF PROFIT IS EXCESSIVE. ACCORDING TO TH E ASSESSEE, IT SHOULD NOT BE MORE THAN HALF PERCENT. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GO NE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. A BARE READING OF SECTION 145 W OULD REVEAL THAT IT PROVIDE THE MECHANISM HOW TO COMPUTE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO SUB-SECTION 1, THE INCOME CHARGEABLE U NDER THE HEAD PROFIT AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION OR INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE SHALL BE COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTAN CY EMPLOYED BY AN ASSESSEE REGULARLY, SUBJECT TO SUB-SECTION 2 OF SECTION 145 OF THE ACT. SUB-SECTION 2 PROVIDES THAT THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT MAY NOTIFY IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE FROM TIME TO TIME, THE ACCOUNTING STANDARD REQUIRED TO BE FOLLOWED BY ANY CLASS OF ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF ANY CLASS OF INCOME. THUS, IT INDICATES THAT INCOME HAS TO BE COMPUTED I N ACCORDANCE WITH THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTANCY FOLLOWED BY AN ASSESSEE I.E. CASH OR MERCANTILE, SUCH METHOD HAS TO BE FOLLOWED KEEPING IN VIEW THE ACCOUNTING ITA NO.60 AND 76 /RJT/2014 - 4 - STANDARD NOTIFIED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT FROM TI ME TO TIME. SUB CLAUSE 3 PROVIDES A SITUATION, THAT IS, IF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER IS UNABLE TO DEDUCE THE TRUE INCOME. ON THE BASIS OF METHOD OF A CCOUNTANCY FOLLOWED BY AN ASSESSEE THAN HE CAN REJECT THE BOOK RESULT AND THE ASSESSEES INCOME ACCORDING TO HIS ESTIMATION OR AC CORDING TO HIS BEST JUDGMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THAT CASE IS REQ UIRED TO POINT OUT THE DEFECTS IN THE ACCOUNTS OF ASSESSEE AND REQUIRED TO SEEK EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE QUA THOSE DEFECTS. IF THE ASSESSEE FAI LED TO EXPLAIN THE DEFECTS THAN ON THE BASIS OF THE BOOK RESULT, INCOM E CANNOT BE DETERMINED AND ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD COMPUTE THE INCOME ACCORDING TO HIS ESTIMATION KEEPING IN VIEW THE GUIDING FACTO R FOR ESTIMATING SUCH INCOME. 8. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THAT SECTION 144 W OULD SUGGEST THAT IN ORDER TO ESTIMATE INCOME, LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO EXERCISE HIS DISCRETION WHICH SHOULD BE IN CONSONANCE WITH BEST OF HIS JUDGMENT. WE ARE CONSCIOUS OF THE FACT THAT IN VARIOUS AUTHORITA TIVE PRONOUNCEMENTS, IT HAS BEEN PROPOUNDED THAT IN MAKING A BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MUST NOT ACT DISHONESTLY OR VINDI CTIVELY OR CAPRICIOUSLY. HE MUST MAKE, WHAT HE HONESTLY BELIEV E TO BE A FAIR ESTIMATE OF THE PROPER FIGURE OF ASSESSMENT AND FOR THIS PURPOSE HE MUST BE ABLE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION, LOCAL KNOWLEDGE , REPUTATION OF THE ASSESSEE ABOUT HIS BUSINESS, THE PREVIOUS HISTORY O F THE ASSESSEE OR THE SIMILARLY SITUATED ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO PERTINENT T O MENTION THAT JUDGMENT IS A FACULTY TO DECIDE MATTER WITH WISDOM, TRULY AN D LEGALLY. JUDGMENT DOES NOT DEPEND UPON THE ARBITRARY, CAPRICE OF AN A DJUDICATOR, BUT ON SETTLED AND INVARIABLY PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE. THUS, IN A BEST JUDGMENT, EVEN IF, THERE IS AN ELEMENT OF GUESS WORK, IT SHOU LD NOT BE A WILD ONE, ITA NO.60 AND 76 /RJT/2014 - 5 - BUT SHALL HAVE REASONABLE NEXUS TO THE AVAILABLE MA TERIAL AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH ASSESSEE. 9. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE PROPOSITION, AND THE WRITT EN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE INCLUDING DECISIONS RELIED BY THE ASSESSEE VIZ. BRIJ BHUSHAN LAL PARDUMNA KUMAR VS. CIT, 115 ITR 524 (SC ), K.BALIAH VS.CIT 56 ITR 182 (MYS) AND CIT VS. LAXMINARAIN BAD RIDAS, 5 ITR 170 (PC, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ESTIMATION OF THE PROFIT ARRIVED AT BY THE AO CANNOT BE FOUND FAULTED. THE ASSESSEE COULD HAV E EASILY MADE THE JOB OF AO MORE EASIER IF HE HAS SUBMITTED DETAILS S HOWING COMMISSION RECEIVED BY HIM FROM THE MOBILE COMPANIES. THAT WO ULD ELIMINATE THE GUESS-WORK FOR ESTIMATING THE PROFIT. BUT INSTEAD OF AGITATING THE ISSUE UPTO THE LEVEL OF SECOND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THIS VERY EASY STEP WAS NOT TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DETAI LS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY EXERCISED HIS DISCRE TION OF ESTIMATING THE PROFIT. WE FIND THAT NO ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). THUS, GROUND OF APPEAL IS REJECTED. 10. THE NEXT GROUND OF GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.35,000/- . 11. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AO NOTICED THAT THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE IN BALANCE AS PER BOOKS MAINTAINED BY TH E ASSESSEE AND THE BANK ACCOUNT IN RESPECT OF PAN MASALA , GUTKHA TRANSACTIONS. THIS DIFFERENCE HAS BEEN ADDED BY THE AO. THE LD.COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE ONCE THE BOOKS ARE REJECTED AND PROFIT ARE BEING ESTIMATED, THEN SEPARATE ADDITION OUGHT NOT TO BE M ADE. IT IS PERTINENT TO OBSERVE THAT PROFIT HAS BEEN ESTIMATED QUA SALE OF MOBILE RECHARGE ITA NO.60 AND 76 /RJT/2014 - 6 - VOUCHERS ONLY. THIS IS A LIMITED REJECTION OF BOOK S ON ONE ISSUE, WHICH HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE CIT(A). WITH REGARD TO THE REGULAR SOURCE OF BUSINESS I.E. TRADING IN PAN MASALA AND GUTKHA, BOOKS HAVE NOT BEEN REJECTED. THE PROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED. THE CLOSING BALANCE DIFFERENCE ON THAT ACTIVITY REQUIRE S TO BE ADDED SEPARATELY. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED TH IS ADDITION. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. IT IS REJECTED. 12. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS REJECT ED. 13. NEXT WE TAKE ITA NO.76/RJT/2014. 14. IN THIS APPEAL, GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS TH AT THELD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS.72,928/- WHIC H WAS IMPOSED BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 271B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 15. AS OBSERVED EARLIER WHILE DEALING WITH ITA NO.6 0/RJT/2014 WE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY ACCOUNTED TRANSACT IONS QUA PAN MASALA AND GUTKA , BUT DID NOT DISCLOSE TRANSACTION QUA SALE OF MOBILE RECHARGE VOUCHERS TO THE TUNE OF RS.1.25 CRORES IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE AO OBSERVED THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, THE ASSESSEE REQUIRES TO GET HIS ACCOUNTS AUDI TED SINCE THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE EXCEEDED RS.40 LAKHS, WHIC H THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DO SO. AO ACCORDINGLY INITIATED PROCEEDINGS UND ER SECTION 271B FOR HIS FAILURE TO GET ACCOUNTS AUDITED AND ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABL E TO THE AO. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO LEVIED A PENALTY OF RS.72,928/- UNDER SECTION 271B OF THE ACT. IN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE ACTION OF THE AO FOR IMPOSING PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271B WAS UPHELD. THE ITA NO.60 AND 76 /RJT/2014 - 7 - DISCUSSIONS MADE BY THE LD.CIT(A) WHILE CONFIRMING ORDER OF THE AO ARE WORTH TO NOTE, WHICH READ AS UNDER: 3. SHRI D. R. ADHIA, AR, APPEARING FOR THE APPELLA NT IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS MADE HAS MAINLY CONTENDED THAT THE SALE OF MOBILE RECHARGE VOUCHERS AT RS. 1,24,65,192 IS MOBILE TO MOBILE TRA NSFER OF RECHARGE AMOUNTS AND NOT SALE/PURCHASE OF GOODS PHYSICALLY. THUS, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF THE BOOKS GETTING AUDITED U/S.44AB OF T HE IT ACT, 1961. ASSESSING OFFICER, WHILE LEVYING PENALTY U/S.271B O F THE IT ACT, 1961, AT PARAGRAPH 6 OF HIS' ORDER HAS SAID IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: '6. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPTED FOR THE REASON STATED HERE UNDER. AS PER THE TRADING ACCOUNT OF TH E ASSESSEE FILED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE TOTAL SALES OF THE ASSESSEE OUT OF BOTH THE BUSINESS IS RS.1,45,85,6321-. TOTAL SALE OFRS.21,20,4401- OUT OF THE BUSINESS OF GUTKA. PAN MASALA ETC. AND TOTAL SALES OF RS.1.24,65,1921- OUT OF THE BUSINESS OF MOBILE RECHARGE VOUCHERS. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO GET HIS ACCOUNT AUDITED BY AN ACCOUNTANT BEFORE SPECIFIED DATE IN P RESCRIBED PROFORMA AND TO BEFILEDWITH RETURN OF INCOME BEFORE 31.10.2009, BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO GET HIS ACCOUNTS AUDITED BY AN ACCOUNTANT ASSESSEE'S PLED / CONTENTION THAT HIS SALES / TURNO VER IS LESS THAN RS. 40 LACS IS NOT CORRECT BECAUSE FROM THE ASSESSE E'S RECORDS! BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE GROSS TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR WAS RS.1,45,85,632/-. THE SALES AND PURCHASE OF MOBILE RECHARGE SERVICES/COUPONS ARE INCLUDED AS TH E TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE IN TERMS OF SECTION 44AB OF THE 1. T. ACT. 1961,AND THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS ALSO TREATED THE SAME AS PART OF HIS GROSS TURNOVER. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THEREFO RE NOT ACCEPTABLE AND IT IS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO GET HIS ACCOUNTS AUDITED AS PROVIDED U/S 44AB OF THE I.T. ACT. SINCE THE ASSESS EE HAS FAILED TO JUSTIFY WITH REASONABLE CAUSE, HIS FAILURE TO GET H IS ACCOUNTS AUDITED U/S 44AB, HE IS HELD LIABLE FOR PENALTY U/S.271B OF THE IT. ACT, 1961.' 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED CAREFULLY, THE SUBMISSIONS MAD E BY THE APPELLANT AND THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AT THE OUTSET, THIS IS A CASE WHERE THE APPELLANT HAS NOT DISCLOSED THE BUSI NESS OF TRADING IN MOBILE RECHARGE VOUCHERS AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,24,65,1 92. INSTEAD, HE HAS DISCLOSED ONLY TURNOVER OF RS.21,20,440 FROM THE TR ADING IN PANMASALA/GUTKHA/CIGARETTES ETC. IN THE RETURN OF I NCOME FILED AND THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFF ICER FOR A.Y.2008-09. ITA NO.60 AND 76 /RJT/2014 - 8 - THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF BOTH DISCLOSED AND UNDISCLOSE D 'BUSINESS COMES TO RS.1,45,85,632. MUCH MORE THAN RS.40,00,000, ACCORD INGLY ATTRACTS THE PROVISIONS OF COMPULSORY AUDIT U/S.44AB OF THE IT A CT, 1961. TO TFIAT EXTEND, THE APPELLANT IS LIABLE FOR PENALTY U/S.271 B OF THE IT ACT, 1961. COMING TO THE ASPECT THAT THE AR RAISED, THAT THE T RADING IN MOBILE RECHARGE VOUCHERS UNDERTAKEN BY THE APPELLANT DO NO T CONSTITUTE PURCHASE AND SALE IS FAR FROM CONVINCING. THIS ACTIVITY IS N OTHING BUT THE SALE OF SERVICES AKIN TO A SOFTWARE THAT 'ENABLE COMMUNICAT ION THROUGH THE MODE OF SATELLITE BY VIRTUE OF SPECTRUM OWNED BY THE COM PANIES HAVING TELECOM LICENSES IN A GIVEN AREA. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE APPE LLANT SINCE FAILED TO GET HIS ACCOUNTS AUDITED IS LIABLE FOR PENALTY U/S.271B OF THE IT ACT, 1961. THE PENALTY LEVIED AT RS.72,928 U/S.271B OF THE IT ACT, 1961 FOR A.Y.2008-09 STANDS CONFIRMED. 16. WE FIND THAT PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271B OF THE ACT IS IMPOSABLE UNDER THE ACT, IF ANY PERSON FAILS TO GET HIS ACCOU NTS AUDITED IN RESPECT OF ANY PREVIOUS YEAR AND FAILS TO FURNISH REPORT TH EREOF TO THE AO. THE THRESHOLD LIMIT AS PROVIDED UNDER THE ACT, REQUIRE THE ASSESSEE TO COMPULSORILY GET HIS ACCOUNTS AUDITED BEFORE THE SP ECIFIC DATE. ADMITTEDLY TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE IS MORE THAN RS .40 LAKHS AND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT GET HIS ACCOUNTS AUDITED. SINCE TH E ASSESSEE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT WITHOUT ANY V ALID REASONS, THE ORDER IMPOSING THE PENALTY DESERVED TO BE CONFIRMED . WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN ORDERS OF BOTH THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WHICH WE CONFIRM AND THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSE D. 17. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 TH SEPTEMBER, 2018. SD/- (WASEEM AHMED) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED, 11 /09/2018