Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore
M/S.Deluxe Roadlines Pvt.Ltd.,, ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 14 September, 2018
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
'C' BENCH, BENGALURU
BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA Nos. 2252 to 2255/Bang/2016
(Assessment years: 2010 - 11 & 2011-12)
M/s Deluxe Roadlines Pvt. Ltd.
" Deluxe House",
#35/1, 1st Floor, M T B Road,
Near Minerva Circle,
Bangalore - 560002
PAN: AAACD5875F Appellant
Vs.
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax,
Circle 2(1) (2),
Bengaluru. Respondent
Assessee by : Shri V.Srinivasan, Advocate.
Revenue by : Dr. P. V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Date of hearing : 23/07/2018
Date of pronouncement : 14/09/2018
O R D E R
PER BENCH:
Out of this bunch of four appeals, all filed by the same assessee, two appeals are in respect of penalty imposed u/s 271A and the remaining two appeals are in respect of penalty imposed u/s 271B. These appeals are directed against four separate orders of the ld.CIT (A) - 7, Bengaluru all dated 23.09.2016 for A. Ys. 2010 - 11 & 2011 - 12. All these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience.
2. As per the grounds raised by the assessee in these four appeals, the assessee has the grievance for confirming the penalty of Rs. 25,000/- and ITA Nos. 2252 to 2255/Bang/2016 Page 2 of 3 Rs. 150,000/- u/s 271A & section 271B respectively in A. Ys. 2010 - 11 & 2011 - 12.
3. Brief facts are that the AO noticed that the assessee has neither maintained Books of Accounts as required u/s 44AA nor got the Books audited as required u/s 44AB in these two years. The AO imposed penalty of Rs. 25,000/- u/s 271A in each of both years and he also imposed penalty u/s 271B in each of both years. Learned CIT (A) confirmed both penalties in both years and the assessee is in appeal before the tribunal.
4. The ld.AR of the assessee placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Bisauli Tractors as reported in 299 ITR 219. He pointed out that in this case, Hon'ble Allahabad High Court held that Separate penalty has been provided for non- maintenance of accounts, i.e., under s. 271A and for not getting the accounts audited and not furnishing the audit report i.e., under s. 271B. In the present case, the AO did not impose penalty under s. 271A and instead proceeded to impose penalty under s. 271B. If a person has not maintained the accounts book or any accounts the question of its audit does not arise. In such an event the imposition of penalty under the provision contained in s. 271A for the alleged non-compliance of s. 44AA may arise but the provisions of s. 44AB do not get violated in case where the accounts have not been maintained at all and, therefore, penal provisions of s. 271B would not apply. He submitted that as per this judgment, penalty u/s 271B is not sustainable. Learned DR of the revenue supported the order of the ld.CIT(A).
5. We have considered rival submissions. Respectfully following this judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Bisauli Tractors (Supra), we confirm the penalty imposed u/s 271A in both years but delete the penalty imposed u/s 271B in both years.
ITA Nos. 2252 to 2255/Bang/2016 Page 3 of 3
6. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee regarding penalty u/s 271A are dismissed but both the appeals of the assessee regarding penalty u/s 271B are allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 14th September, 2018 Sd/- Sd/-
(SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) (A.K. GARODIA)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Place : Bengaluru.
D a t e d : 14/09/2018
*MS
Copy to :
1 Appellant
2 Respondent
3 CIT(A)
4 CIT
5 DR, ITAT, Bangalore.
6 Guard file
By order
Senior Private Secretary
Income-tax Appellate Tribunal
Bangalore