2025 (12) TMI 844

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in turn arises out of a penalty order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 271B of the Act, on 23.05.2019. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: "1. The Ld CIT(A) & assessing officer failed to appreciate that the appellant is merely acting as a commission agent and only commission income not total freight constitutes gross receipts for the purpose of section 44AB. 2. The Penalty levied by the Ld CIT(A) & assessing officer exceeds the statutory limits u/s 271(B) which prescribes a penalty of 0.5% of turnover or 1,50,000/- whichever is lower. However, the penalty of 1.5% has been imposed. 3. The failure to get accounts audited was not deliberate or intentional but arose from a genuine & reasonable ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... owners. Further, stated that commission was charged as a specific amount per consignment of irrespective of its total value of freight (say Rs. 500/- per consignment). The assessee has not produced any documentary evidences in support of his claim. Further furnish only reasons/explanation for proving herself as a commission agent. The assessee also relies on the judgment of the the ITAT, New Delhi in the case of Delhi U.P Golden transport v/s ITO Wd. 1(2), Gaziabad which is not applicable in the assessee's case as it was belongs to reopen case which was already scrutinize u/s.143(3) of the I.T.Act." 4. However, assessing officer rejected the above contention of the assessee and imposed the maximum penalty under section 271B of the A....