2013 (3) TMI 842

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t. According to the ld. senior counsel, the taxpayer is not maintaining any books of account. According to the ld. senior counsel, no books of account were prescribed by the CBDT in respect of civil contrcator. Therefore, the taxpayer can not be blamed for not maintaining the books of account. Referring to the order of the CIT(A) dated 10-042012, the ld. senior counsel submitted that the penalty levied u/s 271A of the Act by the assessing officer was deleted by the CIT(A). According to the ld. senior counsel, once the books of account were not maintained, there is no question of any levy of penalty for not auditing the books of account. According to the ld. senior counsel, the question of audit would come into consideration only if at all t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ne through the provisions of section 44AA of the Act. Sub clause (2) of section 44AA clearly says that every person carrying on business or profession [not being the profession referred to in sub clause (1)] shall keep and maintain the books of account and other documents as may enable the Assessing Officer to compute his total income in accordance with the provisions of this Act in case the income from business or profession exceeds one lakh twenty thousand rupees or his total sales, turnover or gross receipts, as the case may be, in business or profession exceeded or exceeds ten lakh rupees in any one of the three years immediately preceding the previous year. Therefore, in our opinion, the legislature expects even a civil contractor to m....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s Tribunal in the case of Aggarwal Construction Co (supra). Therefore, once the penalty for not maintaining the books of account was deleted, it is not known how the very same CIT(A) confirmed the penalty levied u/s 271B of the Act for not getting the books of account audited. 7. In yet another case of Shri Ramchandra D Keluskar in ITA No.668/PN/10, the Pune Bench of this Tribunal found that when there are no books of account, the question of its audit does not arise. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that when the books of account was not maintained and the penalty levied u/s 271A was deleted, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that there is no justification for levying penalty u/s 271B of the Act for not get....