Case Number: ITA 5508/DEL/2019
Appellant: Nikki Tyagi, Delhi
Respondent: ITO Ward-44(1), New Delhi
Assessment Year: 2015-16
Case Filed On: 2019-06-21
Order Type: Final Tribunal Order
Date of Order: 2022-06-30
Pronounced On: 2022-06-30
In the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench ‘E’, the case of Nikki Tyagi vs ITO Ward-44(1), New Delhi was heard through video conferencing. The appellant, Nikki Tyagi, appealed against the order of the CIT(A)-15, New Delhi, which had confirmed the penalty imposed under Section 271B for the failure to get accounts audited as required under Section 44AB.
The appellant, Nikki Tyagi, a distributor of Mother Dairy Packed Milk and milk products, declared income from business under presumptive taxation provisions. The assessee did not maintain books of account and filed the return of income accordingly. The income was deposited in the current account, and payments to Mother Dairy were made through ECS. The total turnover was determined to be Rs.3,19,09,663/- based on information provided by Mother Dairy.
The hearing was presided over by Sh. A.D. Jain, Vice President, and Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member. During the hearing on 10.05.2022, the appellant was represented by Sh. U.S. Aggarwal, Advocate, while the Revenue was represented by Sh. N.K. Bansal, Sr.DR.
The AO held that since the turnover exceeded Rs. One crore, the assessee was required to get the accounts audited under Section 44AB. Due to non-audited accounts, a penalty under Section 271B was imposed. The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty, stating that ignorance of law is no excuse and upheld the penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/-.
The appellant argued that the business was conducted under presumptive taxation, and no books of account were maintained. The entire turnover was handled by Mother Dairy, and the assessee only earned a commission. The receipts were regularly sent to Mother Dairy through ECS, and the bank statements were furnished to support this claim.
The Tribunal concluded that the penalty imposed under Section 271B was not justified given the circumstances of the case. The appeal was allowed, and the penalty was obliterated. The decision emphasized the importance of understanding the nature of the business and the correct application of tax laws.
The case of Nikki Tyagi vs ITO Ward-44(1), New Delhi (ITA 5508/DEL/2019) demonstrates the Tribunal’s detailed examination of the facts and application of tax laws. The appeal was allowed, highlighting that the turnover considered by the Revenue was not the actual income of the assessee but the gross sales handled for Mother Dairy. The decision underscores the need for proper evaluation of business operations and accurate application of tax provisions.
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI
(Through Video Conferencing)
BEFORE
Sh. A.D. Jain, Vice President
Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member
ITA No.5508/Del/2019
Assessment Year : 2015-16
Sh. Nikki Tyagi
C/o-Umang Sahai Aggarwal, Advocate,
505, Maitri Apartment,
Opp. Metro Pillar-411, Sector-09, Rohini, Delhi-110085
PAN: ATHPT0120E
Vs.
Income Tax Officer,
Ward-44(1), New Delhi
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : Sh. U.S. Aggarwal, Adv.
Revenue by : Sh. N.K. Bansal, Sr.DR
Date of Hearing: 10.05.2022
Date of Pronouncement: 30.06.2022
ORDER
PER Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-15, New Delhi, dated 08.05.2019, relating to AY 2015-16.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has declared income from the business being the distributor of Mother Dairy Packed Milk and milk products. Before the AO, the assessee submitted that the assessee does not maintain the books of account and return is filed as per the presumptive taxation provisions. The assessee deposits the security with Mother Dairy against which he receives the milk products to be delivered. He receives cash on daily basis against milk products and deposits the same in his current account. Thereafter he makes ECS payment to Mother Dairy. The assessee increases the product value as per the distributor margin indicated by the Mother Dairy from time to time and he may decrease the margin as per shop to shop.
3. The amount available to the assessee is the net margin to the assessee as disclosed in the return of income. The returned income of Rs.2,49,210/-.
4. The assessee maintains bank accounts with the State Bank of India, Vikas Puri, New Delhi (Current Account) & Oriental Bank of Commerce, Vikas Puri, New Delhi (Saving Account). Copies of bank statements have also been furnished. Information u/s 133(6) of the Income tax Act was also called for from the Mother Dairy. The Senior Manager, Mother Dairy has forwarded the ledger account of the assessee as appearing in the books of Mother Dairy Fruit & Vegetable Pvt. Ltd.
5. The AO held that total turnover of the assessee works out to Rs.3,19,09,663/- which was received by the Mother Dairy through assessee’s bank accounts. It was held that since the assessee’s turnover exceeds Rs. One crore the assessee was liable to get his books of account audited. Owing to non-audited books of accounts after having exceeded threshold limit specified u/s 44AB, penalty u/s 271B has been levied.
6. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition.
7. For the sake of ready reference and completeness of the entire order of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced hereunder:
The AO has levied the penalty on account of failure of the assessee in getting her accounts audited as the turnover of the business exceeded the threshold limit specified u/s 44AB. During the course of appellate proceedings, The AR of the appellant has contended that, “….That it is an admitted fact that the appellant has not maintained any books of account. Even in Para 4 of Assessment Order on page 2 it is duly mentioned that the assessee has not maintained the books of account and return is filed as per presumptive taxation basis..’ The contention of the Appellant has been considered and the order of AO has also been perused. It is seen that the assessee has achieved a total turnover of Rs, 3,19,00,663/- in her business. This turnover figure has already been confirmed by Mother Dairy. The contention of the appellant that the return of income is filed on presumptive taxation basis is not applicable to this turnover figure, It has been held in the case of CIT Vs S.C. Naregal (Kar) 329 ITR 615 that Ignorance of law is no excuse and accordingly the Levy of penalty u/s 27IB was upheld. The AO has given detailed reason on page 2 of his order for levying the penalty. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the whole of the turnover is to be taken for the purpose of calculating the Gross turnover of the business. Therefore, the action of the A.O, in levying the penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- u/s 271B is justified and the action of the A.O. is confirmed accordingly.
8. We have gone through the facts on record. The provisions of section 271B are as under:
“271B. If any person fails to get his accounts audited in respect of any previous year or years relevant to an assessment year or furnish a report of such audit as required under section 44AB, the Assessing Officer may direct that such person shall pay, by way of penalty, a sum equal to one-half per cent of the total sales, turnover or gross receipts, as the case may be, in business, or of the gross receipts in profession, in such previous year or years or a sum of one hundred fifty thousand rupees, whichever is less.”
9. Provisions of section 273B are as under:
“Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of….. section 271B…….., No penalty shall be imposable on the person or the assessee, as the case may be, for any failure refer to in the said provisions if he proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure.”
10. In the instant case, it is proved that all the goods viz. the milk products and the vegetables belongs to the principle “Mother Dairy”. The assessee sells goods on behalf of the principle Mother Dairy on commission basis. The senior Manager of Mother Dairy has also confirmed these facts. The receipts are sent back to the Mother Dairy through ECS on regular intervals. What the assessee gets in this case is only the Commission income. The rate of commission is also determined by the “Mother Dairy fruit and vegetable Pvt. Ltd.” The assessee increased the product value as per the distributor margin indicated by the Mother Dairy from time to time and as per shop to shop based on the locality. Revenue has wrongly considered the gross turnover as the sale of the assessee instead of the commission/margin amount earned by the assessee. Hence, keeping in view, the peculiar facts in the instant case and the provisions of 271B and 273B, we hold that the penalty levied be obliterated.
11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 30/06/2022.
Sd/- Sd/-
(A.D. Jain) (B. R. R. Kumar)
Vice President Accountant Member
Dated: 30/06/2022
Nikki Tyagi vs ITO Ward-44(1), New Delhi (ITA 5508/DEL/2019): Appeal on Penalty Under Section 271B
Manage the increasing number of hearings effortlessly by leveraging the legal AI revolution We are India's Leading revolutionary AI-powered legal platform where you can get enough insights into top cases and judgements.
Research Platform