2024 (3) TMI 1559

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(A)) erred in upholding the action of the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption), Circle -2, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the Assessing Officer) in framing the impugned order levying penalty of Rs 1,50,000 under section 271B of the Act. The appellants contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in framing the impugned penalty order without appreciating that as per the faceless penalty scheme, the jurisdiction to frame an order levying penalty is with the National Faceless Assessment Centre and not the Assessing Officer. 2. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in levying penalty Rs 1,50,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 3. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in levying penalty of Rs 1,50,000 under section 271B of the Act. The appellants contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought not to have confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer in levying the impugned penalty under section 271B of the Act inasmuch as the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellants are not engaged in any business activity within the meaning of section 2(13) and as such, is not required to get the books of account audited under section 44AB of the Act. The appellants further, contend that the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that there is reasonable cause within the meaning of section 27....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s assessed the total income of Rs,5,52,04,903/- and passed the order u/sec 147 r.w.s 263 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 31.03.2022. 3. Whereas the assessee has filed an appeal against the order u/sec 263 of the Act and the Hon'ble Tribunal has set aside the order of the Pr. CIT vide order dated 15.12.2022. Meanwhile the Assessing officer subsequent to the passing of order u/sec 147 r.w.s 263 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 31.03.2022 has initiated penalty proceedings u/sec 271B of the Act as the assessee has failed to get the books of accounts audited as the receipts exceeds prescribed limit under the provisions of Sec. 44AB of the Act and has issued notice u/sec 274 r.w.s 271B of the Act dated 31.03.2022. The A.O has dealt on the facts, inform....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sment order u/sec 147 r.w.s 263 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 31.03.2022 and the Ld.AR supported the submissions with the judicial decisions and factual paper book and prayed for allowing the appeal. Per Contra, the Ld. DR submitted that the penalty proceedings are separate and the A.O has correctly initiated the penalty proceedings in the order u/sec 147 r.w.s 263 r.w.s 144B of the Act and the Ld.DR supported the order of the CIT(A). 6. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The sole matrix of the disputed issue that the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the Levy of penalty U/sec 271B of the Act. The Ld.AR contentions are that the penalty should not be levied as there was a bonafide belief that the assessee's is n....