Neeta Dineshkumar Salecha v. ITO, Ward-5(3)(4), Ahmedabad
[Citation -2019-LL-1001-24]

Citation 2019-LL-1001-24
Appellant Name Neeta Dineshkumar Salecha
Respondent Name ITO, Ward-5(3)(4), Ahmedabad
Court ITAT-Ahmedabad
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 01/10/2019
Assessment Year 2014-15
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags levy of penalty • failure to get accounts audited • failure to keep or maintain or retain books of account
Bot Summary: Ultimately, after hearing the assessee he imposed a minimum penalty of Rs.1,50,000/-. Counsel for the assessee contended that no doubt the assessee has maintained account for M/s.Shree Sharada Feb Tex. Audit report submitted along with return. Counsel for the assessee took us through first page of the assessment for buttressing his contention. Counsel for the assessee, if the books are not being maintained, then it is impossible for an assessee to get them audited. There should not be any penalty under section 271B upon the assessee. Once the assessee has been submitting that she is not maintaining any accounts for any concern, then she cannot be expected to get them audited. We allow the appeal of the assessee and delete penalty.


IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD - BENCH B BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2492/AHD/2017 Asstt.Year: 2014-2015 Neeta Dineshkumar Salecha ITO, Ward-5(3)(4) C-185, 2nd Floor, Sumel Vs. Ahmedabad. Business Park-2, Kankaria Road Ahmedabad 380 022. (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee by Shri Sunil Maloo, AR Revenue by Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr.DR Dateof Hearing 30/09/2019 Date of Pronouncement 01/10/2019 ORDER PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee is in appeal before Tribunal against order of ld.CIT(A)- 5, Ahmedabad dated 28.8.2017 passed for assessment year 2014-15. 2. Sole grievance of assessee is that ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- imposed by AO under section 271B of Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Brief facts of case are that assessee has filed her return of income on 29.11.2014 declaring total income at Rs.5,00,180/-. facts emerging out from record indicate that at relevant time, assessee was running two proprietorship concerns viz. M/s.Shree Sharada Feb Tex ITA No.2492/Ahd/2017 2 and M/s.Ganesh Trading Company. She has filed tax audit report under section 44AB with regard to account of M/s.Shree Sharada Feb Tex. However, during course of assessment proceedings, it came to notice of AO that assessee is proprietor of M/s.Ganesh Trading Company also, which was having bank account with Progressive Mercantile Cooperative Bank Ltd. Qua this firm, assessee has not got account audited. AO passed assessment order on 30.12.2016 under section 143(2) of Act. He initiated penalty proceedings for not getting accounts audited with regard to M/s.Ganesh Trading Company. Ultimately, after hearing assessee he imposed minimum penalty of Rs.1,50,000/-. Appeal to CIT(A) did not bring any relief to assessee. 4. Before us, ld.counsel for assessee contended that no doubt assessee has maintained account for M/s.Shree Sharada Feb Tex. Audit report submitted along with return. AO has not disputed this fact, and ld.counsel for assessee took us through first page of assessment for buttressing his contention. With regard to M/s.Ganesh Trading Company he submitted that by mistake bank account maintained by this concerned remained to be included in audit accounts, and its accounts were not audited because books were not maintained. According to ld.counsel for assessee, if books are not being maintained, then it is impossible for assessee to get them audited. Therefore, there should not be any penalty under section 271B upon assessee. He relied upon following decisions: i) Shri Rajeshbhai Hirabhai Patel Vs. ITO, ITA Nos.359 & 455/Rjt/2014 (Ahd-Tribunal); ITA No.2492/Ahd/2017 3 ii) Shri Udayshankar Narendraprasad Vs. ITO, ITA No.223/Ahd/2-13 (Ahd-Trib.); iii) Paragkumar Mafatlal Shah Vs. ITO, ITA No.2081/Ahd/2011 (Ahd-Trib); iv) Mukesh G. Jaswani Vs. ITO,ITA No.515/Ahd/2008 (Ahd- Trib) v) Gurinder Kahlon Vs. ITO, ITA No.642/Ahd/2015 (Ahd-Trib) 5. On other hand, ld.DR contended that for exonerating one penalty, assessee cannot take plea of another default. On one hand, she has not disclosed accounts to department, and on other hand she is trying to absolve herself from levy of penalty under argument that accounts were not maintained. 6. We have duly considered rival submissions and gone through record carefully. For not maintaining accounts, penalty is required to be imposed under section 271A. ld.AO ought to have initiated penalty under this section. But once assessee has been submitting that she is not maintaining any accounts for any concern, then she cannot be expected to get them audited. It is plausible argument. Judgments relied upon by ld.counsel for assessee are to this effect. We allow appeal of assessee and delete penalty. 7. In result, appeal of assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in Court on 1st October, 2019 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- Sd/- (AMARJIT SINGH) (RAJPAL YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad Dated 01/10/2019 Neeta Dineshkumar Salecha v. ITO, Ward-5(3)(4), Ahmedabad
Report Error