Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. We have heard both the parties. The Hon'ble Apex Court in he case of Union of India and Others Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors and Others, 306 ITR 277 has held that penalty is a civil liability and willful concealment is not essential ingredient for imposing civil liability. Hence, we have to consider the explanation offered by the assessee in response to the show cause notice issued and there is no burden on the revenue to establish that there 11 ITA No.66 & 67/B/09 was willful default on the part of the assessee. We have gone through the asst. order. It is clear from the asst. order that the AO has computed the income on the basis of the books of account. The AO has not rejected the books of account for the purpose of computation of income. The books of account have been rejected, simply on the basis that the assessee has not followed the accounting standard AS-2. Rule 6F of the Income-tax Rules prescribes the maintenance of specific books of account for the persons, who are carrying on certain profession. The assessee is not covered under Rule-6F, hence there were no books of account, which were prescribed by the Board, to be maintained. In the books of account, as available in the paper book, the assessee has maintained the details of development cost, administrative expenses, wages etc. Development cost has been separately sub- divided into cement, bricks and water. The details of payment and the dates on which payment have been made are mentioned. However, the details do not contain the person to whom such payment has been made. The asst. years under consideration were the initial asst. years, for which, the revenue has made asst. Thus, there was reasonable cause with the 12 ITA No.66 & 67/B/09 assessee for maintaining the books of account, in the form, which have been produced during the course of asst. proceedings. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s S.C Naregal in IT 263/2004 vide decision dated 23.9.08 has held that period of limitation for section 271B is from initiation of proceedings and is not to be linked with the period up to which asst. could have been completed. Penalty proceedings can be initiated either during the course of asst. proceedings or during the course of other proceedings. Section 271A does not mention that such proceedings are to be initiated during the course of asst. proceedings. Hence, such proceedings could have been separately initiated. Since the time limit for completion of such proceedings is on the basis of the initiation and, therefore, it cannot be said that such proceedings could not have been completed before the asst. proceedings as time limit for completion of asst. proceedings was separate and distinct. However, it is true that the findings in the asst. order are relevant while deciding the penalty. In case, the income is computed on the basis of the books of account maintained, then the revenue cannot say that the assessee has not maintained the books 13 ITA No.66 & 67/B/09 of account. Hence, considering the above factual position, we feel that penalty was not to be imposed in this case for both the asst. years, as the assessee has reasonable cause and AO was able to determine the income as per the books of account produced before him during the course of asst. proceedings. Penalties imposed by the AO are cancelled and the appeals are allowed.