TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (7) TMI 305
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., raises the solitary ground as under: "That the learned AO was unjustified, unjudicious and wrong in imposing the penalty of Rs. 54,367 under s. 271B of the IT Act, 1961, in the facts and circumstances of the case." 2. Briefly, the facts are that the assessee disclosed gross commission of Rs. 4,89,480 from the gross freight receipt of Rs. 1.08 crores. The assessee, however, appended the rep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n behalf of other truck owners and has retained only his commission. The receipt of freight is not the turnover of the assessee. The audited accounts also reveal that the assessee had disclosed only the commission receipt as its income in the P&L a/c which is duly audited by the CA. Thus, there has not been any violation of provision of s. 44AB of the Act. Reliance has been placed on the decision ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tained as its income. The total commission income earned during the year under consideration amounted to Rs. 4,89,480 on the total gross freight receipts of Rs. 1.08 crores. In catena of cases the Tribunal has considered such commission as the turnover of the assessee and not the gross freight receipt. In the case of ITO vs. Bindra Ban Bansi Lal, the Amritsar Bench of the Tribunal Observed that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... paid by it to the individual truck owner was not the assessee's own sales and this is a debatable issue and, therefore, the assessee was under a bona fide belief that such receipts were not to be included for the purpose of audit. Accordingly, such a bona fide belief constitutes a reasonable cause and no penalty was exigible. For parity of reasons, there was no case of Revenue to have imposed pen....