Mohd Javed, Delhi V. ITO,Ward-48(5), Delhi

ITA 916/DEL/2022

AI Insights

The case revolves around an appeal by Mohd Javed against the order of the CIT(A)-3, National Faceless Appeal Centre, which confirmed a penalty under Section 271B for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act. The penalty was imposed due to cash deposits amounting to Rs. 4.3 Crores in the assessee's bank account, which were considered as his sales turnover. However, the assessee argued that these deposits were commissions received as a commission agent for the Gujarat Milk Cooperative Federation, and not sales. The Tribunal, after reviewing the facts and circumstances, agreed with the assessee's position and allowed the appeal, thereby removing the penalty.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 131822 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-03-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 07-12-2022
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 04-05-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: J. S. KOHLI
• Section: 271B; 44AB

Judgement Text

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHIBENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Sh. Yogesh Kumar US, Judicial Member ITA No. 916/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year: 2017-18 Mohd Javed, 736, Gali Fazal Pura, Daryaganj, Sui Walan, Delhi-110062 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-48(5), Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AGPPJ7753C Assessee by : Sh. J. S. Kohli, CA Revenue by : Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 08.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 03.03.2023 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A)-3, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 29.03.2022. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The appellate order framed is not justified in the eyes of law. 2. The learned CIT (Appeal) failed to appreciate the facts placed on the record during the course of appellate proceedings that the cash/receipts deposited in regular bank account were not a sale in the hands of appellant, it were related to the principal concern as by virtue of an agreement the appellant was to be remunerated with nominal fixed commission. ITA No. 916/Del/2022 Mohd Javed 2 3. That the penalty appealable was deserved to kept in abeyance where the request was made that in quantum's appeal is mainly on the same issue that the appellant was only a mediator in respect of receipt appearing in Bank account. Further the principal concern had also confirmed such facts. 4. In the circumstances and fact of the case the appellant was not liable U/s 44AB so the learned CIT (Appeal) was not justified in confirming the penalty U/s 271B.” 3. Suffice to say that owing to the cash deposits of Rs.4.3 Cr. in the bank account and the sales turnover of Rs.4.01 lacs in the ITR the revenue levied penalty u/s 271B considering the deposits of Rs.4.3 Cr. as turnover of the assessee. 4. Having gone through the entire material on record, we find that the assessee is a commission agent of Gujarat Milk Cooperative Federation having milk booth at Darya Ganj, Delhi and earning a commission margin @ 0.55% to 12.16% per unit on butter milk to paneer. The same are as under: ITA No. 916/Del/2022 3 ITA No. 916/Del/2022 Mohd Javed ITA No. 916/Del/2022 Mohd Javed 4 5. Since, the assessee only a commission agent and earns margin as prescribed in Gujarat Milk Cooperative Federation rules as reflected in column 5 above, we hold that the penalty levied u/s 271B obliterated. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 03/03/2023. Sd/- Sd/- (Yogesh Kumar US) (Dr. B. R. R. Kumar) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 03/03/2023 *Subodh Kumar/AK, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR