TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 791
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2007-08 25,184/- 2008-09 1,47,702/- 2009-10 84,291/- 2010-11 1,35,820/- 2. The assessee in the present case is an individual who is engaged in the business of construction as well as the labour contractor. The returns of income for all the four years under consideration were originally filed by him under section 139(1) declaring gross receipts from business and total income as under: Assessment Year Gross Receipts Total Income 2007-08 36,00,000/- 1,81,860/- 2008-09 37,13,848/- 1,84,600/- 2009-10 38,85,280/- 2,15,803/- 2010-11 37,12,069/- 2,32,005/- All the four returns of income filed by the assessee for the years under consideration were initially processed by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee had failed to get his books of account audited before the due date as required by section 44AB, penalty proceedings under section 271B of the Act were initiated by the A.O. for all the four years under consideration. In this regard, explanation offered by the assessee in response to the show cause notices issued during the course of penalty proceedings was not found acceptable by the A.O. He accordingly proceeded to impose penalty under section 271B for all the four years under consideration as under: Assessment Year Amount 2007-08 25,184/- 2008-09 1,47,702/- 2009-10 84,291/- 2010-11 1,35,820/- 4. The penalties imposed by the A.O. under section 271B for all the four years under consideration were ch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onstitute an excuse. None are permitted to plead ignorance as a defense to escape the rigors of law. If that be acceptable, it is very easy for any person can put forward ignorance as a defense even though he was actually aware of the law and its full consequences. The law enforcement machinery shall come to a grinding halt if ignorance is accepted as a defense. Being a negative fact, court cannot insist on proof also, It requires the study of the mental position of the law breaker which is a real difficult exercise if not an impossible proposition. For all these reasons the policy of law has always been to reject the plea of ignorance of law. Lord Ellenborough said "there is no saying to what extent the excuse of ignorance might not be car....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome-tax Act, 1961 - Tax audit (Penalty) - Assessment year 2004-05 - Assessee entered into speculative business of shares - Transactions entered into by her were more than prescribed monetary limit for tax audit under section 44AB - No bonafide reasons were furnished by assessee, for not getting books of accounts audited, before Assessing Officer or first appellate authority - Whether considering principles governing imposition of penalty under section 271B Assessing Officer was justified in levying penalty for not getting her books of account audited - Held, yes [Para 7] [In favour of revenue]. In the present appeal, also in view of the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the Ld. AO has rightly levied the penalty u/s 271....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n was found to be actually more than the limit of Rs. 40,00,000/- prescribed in section 44AB and the said quantum having been upheld even in appeal by the Tribunal, we are of the view that the provisions of section 44AB were clearly attracted going by the actual turnover or gross receipts of the assessee's business. 6. The second contention raised by the learned counsel for the assessee is that no books of account having been regularly maintained by the assessee for all the four years under consideration, no penalty under section 271B could be imposed for violation of section 44AB. In support on this contention, he has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Suraj Mal Parasuram Todi vs CIT 222 ITR 691 as well ....