TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 960
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome Tax Act. 2. On the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in passing order u/s 250 of the Act, dated 30.03.2023 as he has failed to consider that it is the first year when the appellant has takeover the business from his brother and does not aware about the provision of the income tax act and requirement to get books of accounts audited due to the fact that appellant is in bona fide belief that his income does not exceed the maximum income chargeable to tax he is not supposed to filed return of Income and get books of account audited. 3. On the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) since Ld. CIT (A) has failed to consider that by not doing books of accounts audited during the year under consideration there is no loss to the revenue as there is no adjustment in the books of accounts of the appellant and the breach of provision of section 44AB is just a mistake of the appellant which is no intentional and hence the penalty is required to be waived off. 4. On the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case the o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oks of accounts. 9. On the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case the order the penalty amount is still disputed as Ld. JAO has not given the effect to the order passed u/s. 250 of the act by the Honourable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding penalty charged on turnover of the appellant. 10. On the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in passing order u/s 250 of the Act, dated 30.03.2023 since Ld. CIT (A) has failed to note that AO levied the penalty for a mistake which is technical in nature not only that the accounts provided in the assessment proceeding is not defected and income has been determined from that accounts only and there is no adjustment made by the AO In the assessment proceeding this itself suggest that penalty cannot be charged looking to the facts available on record. 11. On the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in passing order u/s 250 of the Act, dated 30.03.2023 since Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that assessment proceedings initiated and completed by pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and the assessee was not prevented by any reasonable cause to get its account audited under Section 44AB of the Act. Further, the CIT(A) held that from the Profit & Loss Account, the assessee has reported sales of Rs. 3.41 crores, against which the assessee has debited expenses of Rs. 3.36 crores. Accordingly, the assessee is acting as a trader and not a commission agent. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer has correctly levied penalty under Section 271B as there was no reasonable cause which prevented the assessee to get its account audited. While passing the order, Ld. CIT(A) observed as under:- "7.2 The AO has imposed penalty u/s. 271B of Rs. 1,28,529/- for not getting his accounts audited and not furnishing such Audit Report u/s. 44AB within the due date specified therein. The AO has held that the plea of the assessee that the accounts were not audited due to ignorance does not carry any merit as any businessmen has to be aware of prevailing laws and ought to follow the same and this cannot be considered as an inadvertent error. I agree with the view of the AO. As per Section 273B of the Act, no penalty shall be imposed u/s. 271B if the assessee is able to show that there was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ess the assessee for the first time started looking into the business from the impugned assessment year itself. The books of accounts of the assessee firm were duly maintained and it was the first year when the turnover of the assessee's business exceeded the limit liable to be audited. The assessee was not wellversed with income tax provisions, and on being aware of the same, the assessee complied with law and filed Income Tax Return for the impugned assessment year and later assessment years as well. It was further submitted by the Counsel for the assessee that the scrutiny assessment was carried out in the case of the assessee and the income declared by the assessee in the Return of Income was duly accepted, that in additions. The aforesaid proves that there was no mala fide intention in not carrying out audit during the impugned assessment year and there was a reasonable cause for not being able to get the accounts audited under Section 44AB of the Act. Further, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that from perusal of the assessment order it is seen that the Assessing Officer has not rejected the accounting records of the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings.....