TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 398
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o Rs. 1,11,065/- u/s 271 B of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The learned CIT (A) is not justified in dismissing the appeal without giving a reasonable opportunity to the appellant. 3. The learned CIT (A) erred in ignoring the impeccable documentary evidence filed a letter from the Principal Dealer viz. M/s. Anika Bajaj, wherein they have clearly stated the appellant is our sub dealer working on commission and incentive basis only. 4. The penalty u/s 271B of the I.T. Act, 1961 levied on the turnover, which belongs to the Principal Dealer viz., M/s. Anika Bajaj, whereas appellant does not have the turnover which is exceeding the threshold limit as per the provisions of section 44AB of the I.T. Act, 1961. But the turnover of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... total income of Rs. 6,04,030/-. 4. The learned Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that during the year under consideration, the total bank deposit in the assessee's a/c was Rs. 2,22,12,776/- and out of the said amount Rs. 7,97,500/- were deposited by the assessee during the demonetization period. It was the submission of the assessee that the assessee was merely working as an agent of the two-wheeler outlets and making booking for M/s. Anika Bajaj. It was submitted that the bookings made by the assessee for the Principal Outlet. 5. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee had total credits of Rs. 2,22,12,776/- in assessee's bank accounts which was not disclosed in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t was show-caused as to why penalty u/s. 271B should not be levied on 09.12.2019. In response to the show cause notice, it was agent for 2 contended that the one M/s. Anika Bajaj, 2 appellant is only a commission Warangal who are dealers of Bajaj Vehicles and Collecting amounts from the prospective purchaser of 2-Wheelers i.e., Doja) Vehicles as per instruction of the said Principal/Main Dealer i.e., M/s. Bajaj Anika, Warangal through his two outlets viz, Capital Marketing. Thorrur and Sushma Motors. Mahabubabad and for the purpose of computing the turnover, annual commission alone has to be reckoned as the gross receipts. Rejecting the above contentions, the learned Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs. 1,11,065/- (0.5% of Rs. 2,22,12,77....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore the learned AO and as well as before the learned CIT(A) that it was prevented by sufficient cause in not getting its accounts audited under section 44AB of the Act. 4. As an alternative submission, the appellant humbly submits that there are various trade practices prevalent in the country in regard to agency business and no uniform pattern is followed by the commission agents, consignment agents, brokers 'Kuchha Arahtias and Pucca Arahtias dealing in different commodities in different parts of the country. While relying on the CBDT Circular No.452 dt.17th March, 1986, the appellant submits that as per the said Circular, so far as Kuchha Arahtias are concerned, the turnover does not include the sales effected on behalf of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ced before the learned AO and as well as by the learned CIT(A). Therefore, appellant urges before the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal to consider all the submissions made and do the needful justice." 7. Per contra, the learned DR submitted that while making the estimation, the entire amount deposited in the account was considered to be the income of the assessee and therefore, the assessee was required to get it's account audited and in failure thereof, the Assessing Officer was right in taking action u/s 271B of the Act and the learned CIT (A) to confirm the penalty for failure to get the a/c audited as per the provisions of section 271B of the I.T. Act. 8. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused available....