KS Ultratech Pvt. Ltd., Delhi V. DCIT, Central Circle , Noida

ITA 8186/DEL/2018

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by M/s KS Ultratech Pvt. Ltd. against the common order of the CIT(A)-IV, Kanpur, which sustained a penalty of Rs. 25,000 for each assessment year from 2009-10 to 2015-16 under section 271A for alleged non-maintenance of books of accounts. The assessee contested the penalties, arguing that they had maintained and submitted the required books of accounts, as evidenced by the assessment orders and their replies to the Assessing Officer (AO). The Tribunal examined the assessment orders and the submissions made by the assessee and concluded that the penalties were unjustified as there was no evidence in the assessment orders indicating that the books of accounts were not maintained or produced.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 121800 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 1 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-02-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 22-01-2023
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 25-12-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAKESH GUPTA
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.8185 to 8191/DEL/2018 [Assessment Years: 2009-10 to 2015-16] M/s KS Ultratech Pvt. Ltd. 303, Savitri Sadan-1, Preet Vihar, Delhi-110092 Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Noida, Uttar Pradesh PAN-AADCK4329C Assessee Revenue Assessee by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue by Sh. Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 23.01.2023 Date of Pronouncement 07.02.2023 ORDER PER BENCH These are appeals by the assessee against the common order of the Ld. CIT(A)-IV, Kanpur, dated 30.10.2018, wherein, Rs.25,000/- for each assessment years, penalty u/s 271A has been sustained. 2. For the sake of reference, we are referring the grounds of appeal for AY 2009-10. “1) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in levying penalty u/s 271A of Rs.25,000/-. 2) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in levying penalty u/s 271A of Rs.25,000/- on the ground that that the assessee has not 2 ITA Nos.8185 to 8191/Del/2018 been maintaining books of accounts as required by the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3) In any view of the matter and in any case, imposition of penalty w/s 271A and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 4) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. A.O. in passing the impugned order and that too without giving adequate opportunity of hearing and without observing the principle of natural justice.” 3. These grounds are common for each assessment year. At the outset, in this case, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that penalty u/s 271A is to be imposed for failure to keep & maintain books of accounts and documents, etc. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted from that from the assessment order itself it is evident that the assessee has produced necessary books of accounts, documents as required. In this regard, he referred to the para 4 for AY 2009-10 of the assessment order, wherein, it was duly recorded that books of accounts were submitted. He further submitted that nowhere in the assessment order is mentioned that books of accounts were not produced. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted a paper book wherein he enclosed assessee’s reply to the AO which reflected that books of accounts as required were maintained and submitted. For this purpose, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has referred to reply dated 13.09.2016 at paper book pages 41 to 114, the copy of reply dated 22.09.2016 reflected in the paper book pages 115-154. He further referred to assesee’s reply dated 03.12.2016 filed before the AO at paper book pages 115-165. He further referred the assessee’s reply dated 21.12.2016 filed before the AO 3 ITA Nos.8185 to 8191/Del/2018 reflected at paper book pages 166-168. Referring to the above submissions coupled with the assessment order, the ld. Counsel for the assessee pleaded that there is no case for levy of penalty u/s 271A for non-maintenance of books of accounts. 4. Per Contra, the Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 5. We note that assessment order has been framed u/s 143(3) of the Act. The assessment orders did not reflect any finding by the AO that books of account were not maintained or not produced before the AO. For this reference of paper book, wherein reply of the assessee are enclosed vouch for the same. In these circumstances, in our concerned opinion, penalty u/s 271A is not justified. The conduct of the assessee is not at all contumacious to warrant such penalty. Accordingly, we set- aside the orders of the authorities below and direct that penalty of Rs.25,000/- for each assessment years is liable to be deleted. 6. In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 07 th February, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- [ANUBHAV SHARMA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Delhi; Dated: 07.02.2023. f{x f{xf{x f{x~{tÜ ~{tÜ~{tÜ ~{tÜ Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi