Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Sanjay Tyagi CIT (A) and hold that the penalty has been rightly impo sed by the Assessing Officer.

17. ITA Nos. 6866 & 6867/Del/2017 pertain to levy of penalty u/s 271A.

18. The brief facts of the case are that a search u/s 132 of the Act was conducted in the case of Surya Vinayak Group on 03.03.2011. At the same time, the search was also conducted at the residential premises of the assessee at Block AC-1/152C, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. Also, a survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted at the business premises of M/s HR Perfumery at 315, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Panchkula, Haryana, which is a proprietorship concern of the assessee. Subsequently, no tice u/s 153A of the Act was issue d on 08.02.2012 and notices u/s 142(1) o f the Act were issue d by the AO on various dates. There was no response from the assessee. As a result, the AO finalized the assessment u/s 153A r.w.s. 144 of the Act to the best o f his judgment.

19. During the assessment procee dings, the AO found that the assessee has not been maintaining books of accounts stipulated u/s 44AA of the Act and he nce levied penalty of Rs.25,000/- u/s 271A.

20. The ld. CIT (A) confirmed the addition holding that since the assessee has not maintained and produced books of accounts, the action of the Assessing Officer cannot be faulted with.

23. Heard the arguments of bo th the parties and perused the material available on reco rd.

24. The provisions of Section 271A are as under:

"[F ailure to keep, maintain or re tain books of account, documen ts, etc. 271A. Witho ut preju dice to the provision s of [section 27 0A or] section 27 1, if any person fails to keep and maintain any su ch books o f account an d o ther documents as requi red by secti on 44AA or th e rules made thereunder, in respect of any previous year or to retain such books of account and o ther documents for the peri od specified in the said rules, th e [Assessing ] Officer or the [Commission er (Ap peals)] may direct that such person shall pay, b y way o f penalty, [a su m of twen ty-five thou sand rupees].

26. ITA Nos. 6868 & 6869/Del/2017 pertain to levy of penalty u/s 271B.

27. We find that the Asse ssing Officer has levie d penalty u/s 271A as well as Section 271B for the same years. The issue of levy of penalty u/s 271A as well as 271B has been adjudicated by the ITAT Delhi Bench in IT A No.3355/Del/2017 in the case of Sh. Mohit Garg vide order dated 23.06.2020. The relevant portion of the said order is as under:

"Havin g the facts of the case and th e p ro visions of the Act undisp uted, th e ld. AR argued on th e strength of the judgments of various cou rts: