2015 (10) TMI 1507

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he assessment was made u/s. 144 of the Act r.w. Sec. 147 vide order dt. 17.3.2006. While scrutinizing the return of income, the Assessing Officer noticed that the turnover of the assessee exceeded the maximum amount prescribed u/s. 44AB of the Act for getting the account audited and noticing that the assessee has failed to get its account audited, the penalty proceedings u/s. 271B of the Act was initiated. An opportunity was given to the assessee to show cause as to why penalty should not be levied u/s. 271B of the Act. On receiving no plausible reply, the AO proceeded by levying penalty at Rs. 77,927/-. 4. Aggrieved by this, the assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) but without any success. 5. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dited. Enforcement Directorate took action on 29.12.2000 which means that the assessee had grossly failed to get its books of account audited on or before the due date i.e. 30.11.2000 much before the books and other documents were impounded by Enforcement Directorate. The assessee fails on this ground. 8. Before us, the Ld. Counsel has relied upon certain judicial decisions (supra) in support of his contention that quantum additions have been set aside therefore no penalty is leviable. We do not agree with this contention of the Ld. Counsel because levy of penalty u/s. 271B of the Act is nothing to do with the return of income or the quantum additions. Once, the turnover exceeds the limit prescribed u/s. 44AB of the Act, the assessee has t....