Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether penalty under section 271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was leviable for failure to get accounts audited under section 44AB where the assessee, following the project completion method, treated amounts received from customers as advances and not as turnover.
Analysis: The receipts during the year were in the nature of trade advances and, on the project completion method, were not recognised as turnover until the project was completed and the advances crystallised into sales. The assessee entertained a bona fide belief that audit under section 44AB was not required on the basis of such receipts. In these circumstances, the default was not shown to be deliberate or contumacious, and the case fell within the principle that penalty is not to be imposed where reasonable cause exists under section 273B. The reasoning adopted in the cited tribunal decisions supported the view that advances of this nature do not automatically constitute turnover for the purpose of penalty.
Conclusion: Penalty under section 271B was not sustainable and was directed to be deleted.
Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded in challenging the penalty, and the impugned penalty order did not survive.
Ratio Decidendi: Where receipts are accounted for as advances under the project completion method and there is reasonable cause and bona fide belief that such receipts are not turnover, penalty for failure to get accounts audited under section 44AB is not leviable under section 271B.