Penalty for non-maintenance of books cannot be duplicated as audit-default penalty where the same conduct is already punished.

Failure to maintain books of account attracts penalty under section 271A, and the audit obligation under section 44AB presupposes existing books capable of being audited. Where the assessee had already been penalised for non-maintenance of books, the same factual default could not be again treated as a separate breach under section 271B. The penalty under section 271B was therefore not sustainable and was deleted.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under section 271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be sustained where the assessee had not maintained books of account and had already been penalised under section 271A.

Analysis: The assessee, a civil contractor, had not maintained books of account and was penalised for that default under section 271A. The obligation under section 44AB to obtain audit presupposes the existence of books of account capable of being audited. Once the default of non-maintenance of books is complete and penalised under section 271A, there is no further scope for treating the same conduct as a separate default under section 271B. The cited precedent held that failure to maintain books attracts section 271A, while failure to get existing books audited attracts section 271B, and the two penalties cannot be imposed on the same factual basis.

Conclusion: Penalty under section 271B was not sustainable and was deleted.

---