PREM PRAKASH GUPTA Vs. THE I.T.O.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 17/12/2013 by the learned CIT(A) -II, Jaipur for A.Y. 2008 -09. The sole ground of appeal raised is as under: - -

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the assessee contends that the assessee is a government appointed licensed vendor for sale of stamps. As per the Stamp Act, the assessee is eligible only to commission on the rates specified by the I.G. Stamps, which are mentioned in the written submissions. The relationship between the assessee and the government is not of seller and purchaser, which is evident from the provisions of Indian Stamp Act. Since the assessee's commission did not exceed the prescribed limit provided by Section 44AB, the assessee did not get the accounts audited. The assessment also is framed U/s. 143(3) merely making an addition of Rs. 27,000/ -. The Assessing Officer, however, was of the view that total value of the stamps was assessee's turnover and was liable for audit u/s. 44AB, consequently issued notice for penalty U/s. 271B. The assessee replied that it was eligible only to commission, the value of stamps was not his turnover, consequently the case was not covered by the provisions of Section 44AB as per Stamp Act as well as the CBDT circular No. dated 17/03/1986. The Assessing Officer, however, held that the assessee is not a commission agent and was liable for audit u/s. 44AB, penalty was imposed.

(3.) AGGRIEVED , the assessee is in appeal before me.