2020 (6) TMI 719

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Brief facts of the case are that a survey operation u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted in the month of February, 2013 and unaccounted stock of aluminum sheets and aluminum foils was found and the same was surrendered by the assessee for taxation in the assessment year 2013-14. During the assessment proceedings, the fact of surrender of undisclosed income was disputed and the AO made addition based on the statement recorded during the proceedings u/s 133A of the Act. 4. During the penalty proceedings u/s 271B of the Act, the assessee submitted that an income of Rs. 10,71,164/- declared by the assessee as net commission earned is on the basis of a certificate from tax consultant and the assessee was under a bonafide belief ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., the ld. AR argued on the strength of the judgments of various courts: S.P. Todi Vs CIT 226 ITR 691 (Gau.) held, that maintenance of accounts is envisaged under section 44AA and on failure to do so the assessee shall be guilty and liable to be penalized under section 271A. Even after maintenance of books of account the obligation of the assessee does not come to an end. He is required to do something more, i.e., by getting the books of account audited by an accountant. But when a person commits an offence by not maintaining the books of accounts as contemplated by Section 44AA the offence is complete. After that there can be no possibility of any offence as contemplated by Section 44AB and, therefore, in our opinion, the imposition of pena....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the Act for the alleged non-compliance. 9. On the other hand, the ld. DR vehemently argued that the penalty u/s 271A and 271B are mutually exclusive and operate under different domains. She argued that it is not correct to hold that once penalty u/s 271A has already been levied, the penalty under Section 271B cannot stand. It was argued that it is a case of assessee being in the business of trading of aluminum sheets & foils and the bank statement of the assessee depicts turnover of more than Rs. 3 crores and the contention of the assessee that he is in business of earning of commission also cannot be accepted. She relied on the case of Abhay Kumar & Co. Vs Union of India 164 ITR 148 (Raj.). It was argued that while the penalty u/s 2....