TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (7) TMI 494
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....71B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, of Rs. 1,00,000 levied on account of failure on the part of the assessee to get the accounts audited as required under section 44AB of the Act ; 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts in not appreciating the fact that during the year under consideration the assessee had the turnover of Rs. 43,49,986 in the share business which was not considered for auditing of accounts required under section 44AB of the Act." 3. The only issue for consideration which is common in the Revenue's appeal as well as cross-objection filed by the assessee relates to levy of penalty under section 271B of the Income-tax Act. The facts ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s exceeded more than Rs. 40 lakhs. Therefore, the assessee had violated provisions of section 44AB of the Act. The contention of the assessee before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was that on the advice of her chartered accountant, the assessee did not get the accounts audited. However, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) considered the alternative argument of the assessee wherein it had been submitted that if there was any infraction of law it was only with regard to share transaction business. He, therefore, held that the only infraction of law had been with regard to share business. He also relied on the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 570 wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tered accountant before filing the return. Thus she was under a bona fide belief that her chartered accountant had prepared tax audit report under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and there was no mala fide or wilful default on her part in not getting the accounts audited relating to share trading business. Learned counsel for the assessee, therefore, vehemently submitted that no penalty was imposable. 7. We have heard both the parties and gone through the material available on record. Section 44AB reads as under : "Every person,- (a) carrying on business shall, if his total sales, turnover or gross receipts, as the case may be, in business exceed or exceeds forty lakh rupees in any previous year ; or . . . get h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... turnover of all the businesses. The provisions of section 271B are also silent about such a situation. However, under section 273B no penalty shall be imposable on the person or the assessee, as the case may be, for any failure referred to in the said provisions if he proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure. In the case before us the accounts of the export business have been audited before the specified date. Hence, there is no failure on the part of the assessee to get her accounts audited in respect of export business having turnover over rupees fifteen crores. The hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala [1971] 82 ITR 570 has held that equitable considerations are irrelevant in interpreting tax la....