2020 (4) TMI 258

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2011-12 u/s 271A ''in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the actions of AO in levying penalty of Rs. 25,000/- u/s 271A. The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by quashing the said penalty of Rs. 25,000/- ITA No. 263/JP/2019 A.Y. 2011-12 u/s 271B ''in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the actions of AO in levying penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- u/s 271B. The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by quashing the said penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- 2.1 The soli....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s 271A is hereby confirmed.'' 2.3 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 3-2-2012 declaring total income of Rs. 1,85,410/- and the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed on 5-03-2014 at an income of Rs. 7,82,150/-. As per the details available with the department, the assessee had received aggregate receipt from business of Rs. 5,82,860/- during the year under consideration. The AO noted that the assessee has shown the income from business under the category of no books case. The AO further noted that as per the provisions of Section 44AAA(2) of the Act every person carrying on business or profession and the gross....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....with the order of the ld. CIT(A). Thus the solitary ground of the assessee as to confirming of penalty of Rs. 25,000/- u/s 271A of the Act by the ld. CIT(A) is sustained. 3.1 The solitary ground of the assessee is regarding confirming the penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- by the ld. CIT(A) made by the AO u/s 271B of the Act. The facts as emerges from the ld. CIT(A)'s order are as under:- ''4.3 I have gone through the penalty order, statement of facts, grounds of appeal and written submissions carefully. It is seen that the AO has levied the penalty holding that the appellant had the turnover of Rs. 3,13,27,893/- in trading of shares. The appellant has contended that only transaction of Rs. 48,61,090/- were delivery based transactions and the tra....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re delivery based transactions and all other transactions were non-delivery based speculative transactions cannot be accepted. As the appellant has failed to get his accounts audited u/s 44AB and he has also failed to show that there was any reasonable cause for not getting the books of accounts audited, therefore, the penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- made by the AO u/s 271B is hereby confirmed.'' 3.2 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. At the outset of the hearing the ld.AR of the assessee relied on the decision of the ITAT Coordinate Bench in the case of Roshni Devi vs ITO (ITA No. ITA No. 953/JP/2017 for the Assessment Year 2011-12) praying that this issue is covered vide order dated 16-05- 2018. ....