Case Number: ITA 5810/DEL/2019
Appellant: Sumit Mittal, New Delhi
Respondent: DCIT Intl. Taxation, Gurgaon
Assessment Year: 2015-16
Result: Appeal dismissed
Case Filed on: 2019-07-03
Order Type: Final Tribunal Order
Date of Order: 2023-01-05
Pronounced on: 2023-01-05
This appeal by Sumit Mittal pertains to the assessment year 2015-16 and is directed against the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT), International Taxation, Gurgaon. The appeal was heard and pronounced on 5th January 2023 before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench ‘G’, comprising Shri Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member, and Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial Member.
Sumit Mittal filed an appeal against the assessment order for the year 2015-16. The primary issue in this appeal was the penalty of Rs. 1,50,000 levied under section 271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for not furnishing the tax audit report under section 44AB.
The appellant raised several grounds of appeal, primarily contesting the penalty levied for not furnishing the tax audit report. The appellant argued that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the applicability of section 44AB in his case and in upholding the penalty imposed by the AO.
At the time of hearing, there was no representation on behalf of the assessee. The tribunal noted that several notices had been issued to the assessee, but they were returned unserved. Therefore, the appeal was taken up for hearing in the absence of the assessee and was disposed of based on the material available on record.
During the assessment proceedings, the AO noted that the total gross receipt of the assessee was Rs. 95,73,92,751, making him liable for tax audit under section 44AB. Since the tax audit report was not furnished, a penalty of Rs. 1,50,000 was levied under section 271B.
Aggrieved by the AO’s order, the assessee appealed before the CIT(A). The assessee claimed that he had entered into only Future and Option transactions, resulting in gross receipts of Rs. 90,08,691. However, the CIT(A) found that the assessee had not provided any details to substantiate this claim and upheld the AO’s calculation of gross receipts exceeding Rs. 1 crore. Therefore, the CIT(A) confirmed the levy of penalty under section 271B.
The tribunal reviewed the findings of the AO and CIT(A). It noted that the Revenue authorities found the assessee’s turnover to be above the threshold limit requiring a tax audit report. The assessee’s failure to obtain the tax audit report under a mistaken belief of his turnover did not exempt him from the penalty.
The tribunal concluded that the assessee failed to establish that his turnover was below the threshold limit and upheld the penalty imposed by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
Order Pronounced in Open Court on 5th January, 2023.
Signed:
Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member
Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial Member
Dated: 5th January, 2023
Date of Hearing: 08.12.2022
Date of Pronouncement: 05.01.2023
Copy Forwarded to:
By Order
Assistant Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi
Sumit Mittal vs DCIT: Penalty for Non-Filing of Tax Audit Report
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