[2007] 163 TAXMAN 154 (RAJ.)
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Bajrang Oil Mills*
v.
Income-tax Officer
RAJESH BALIA AND MANAK MOHTA, JJ.
IT APPEAL NO. 89 OF 2001
AUGUST 2, 2006
Section 44AB of Income-tax Act, 1961 - Compulsory tax audit - Assessment year 1994-95 - Whether expressions ‘sales’, ‘turnover’ and ‘gross receipts’ used in section 44AB are not words of art used in relation to any individual transaction independently but have been used as ‘sales’, ‘turnover’ or ‘gross receipts’ - Held, yes – Whether expression ‘total’ qualifies all other three expressions, viz., ‘sales’, ‘turnover’ and ‘gross receipts’; total sales indicate aggregate price of sales of commodities carried out by assessee as a trading business - Held, yes - Whether for purpose of attracting section 44AB, receipts of an assessee by way of sale or trading business and receipts for doing job work can be clubbed for purpose of finding out whether limit of Rs. 40 lakhs prescribed for attracting provisions of section 44AB is made out - Held, yes
Section 271B, read with section 44AB, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For failure to get accounts audited - Assessment year 1994-95 - Assessee filed its return declaring total receipts from sales and receipts for job work done by it - Assessing Officer opined that assessee was under an obligation to get its accounts audited under section 44AB and levied penalty under section 271B - Assessee’s case was that it was under bona fide belief that it was not required to get its account audited under section 44AB in as much as its sales and job work receipts on being considered separately did not exceed Rs. 40 lakhs - Whether, on facts, there was reasonable cause for assessee’s failure to comply with provision of section 44AB and, therefore, penalty levied was unjustified - Held, yes