Mr Narwani, a commodity trader from Malviya Nagar, frequently trades in the Multi Commodity Exchange (MCX). However, he failed to keep proper accounting records, which is required under Section 44AA when trading turnover exceeds a set limit.
Narwani’s MCX trading turnover reached Rs 4.29 crore but he filed his income tax return (ITR) declaring Rs 3.42 lakh income. This discrepancy triggered an investigation. On March 26, 2018, his file was reopened and the AO estimated that Narwani had unreported income of Rs 68.58 lakh. One such escaped income included Rs 4.29 lakh income from MCX commodity trading (1% of turnover). On this basis, the Income Tax Department fined him Rs 25,000. Narwani appealed to the CIT (A) to remove this penalty.
The Commissioner of Appeals (CIT A) asked the AO to re-examine the MCX trading details. So the AO called Narwani’s broker and examined the broker’s ledger and transaction reports. The AO observed that Narwani made purchases of Rs 2.68 crore and sales of Rs 2.68 crore, and accepted Narwani’s explanation. He reduced the unreported income addition to Rs 29,016.
With complete transaction details now available, the tax officer found no evidence of a Section 44AA violation and did not impose any penalty under Section 271A in the revised assessment order. The original Rs 4.29 lakh addition that supported the penalty was removed.
On September 22, 2026, Narwani won the tax penalty case at ITAT Jaipur. The ITAT Jaipur cancelled the penalty because of the particular procedural facts of the case i.e. the assessment order forming the basis for initiation of the Section 271A penalty had been set aside, while the fresh assessment neither recorded a default under Section 44AA nor initiated fresh penalty proceedings. However, the ITAT Jaipur did not decide if Narwani was required to maintain books of account in the first place.
Do all stock market traders have to maintain books of accounts?
Chartered Accountant Suresh Surana said to ET Wealth Online: Stock market traders only need to maintain books of accounts if their trading activity is classified as business activity or their income or turnover crosses a particular threshold as specified in the income tax law. The reason why the law mandates books of accounts for speciied taxpayers is because it helps calculate your income in an accurate way.
For an individual or HUF with business income, Surana says that Section 62 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 says that you need to maintain books of accounts if business income exceeds Rs 2.50 lakh or turnover/gross receipts exceed Rs 25 lakhs in any one of the three immediately preceding tax years.
In the given ruling, the ITAT Jaipur did not hold that MCX traders are exempt from maintaining books. It specifically left open the question whether Mr. Narwani was actually required to maintain books under section 44AA. It deleted his Rs 25,000 penalty because the original assessment order containing the penalty initiation had been set aside and the fresh assessment did not initiate such penalty.
Surana says that the key takeaway for taxpayers engaged in stock, derivatives, futures or commodity trading is that the Narwani ruling should not be understood as a general exemption from maintaining books of account.
Accordingly, taxpayers engaged in trading should independently examine whether they are required to maintain books under section 44AA, having regard to the nature of their trading activity and the applicable income/turnover limits.
According to Surana if you are trading in F&O or undertaking any derivative transactions, then you should be careful not to equate the aggregate or notional value of contracts with turnover as turnover should be determined in accordance with the applicable tax provisions and the methodology prescribed in ICAI's Guidance Note on Tax Audit.
Traders should retain broker contract notes, ledger statements, trade-wise transaction reports, bank statements and computation of trading turnover/profit or loss. This is particularly important because, as seen in Narwani's case, the broker's ledger and transaction report enabled the AO in the fresh assessment to determine the actual net profit rather than rely on an estimated income based on the much larger transaction value.
Why did Narwani win the case?
Surana says that in the fresh assessment completed on March 16, 2026, the AO examined the broker's ledger and transaction report. Instead of estimating Rs 4.29 lakh as income, the AO accepted the actual transaction details and restricted the addition to only Rs 29,016, representing the net profit reflected in the broker's report. More importantly, the fresh assessment did not initiate any penalty proceedings under section 271A for non-maintenance of books.
The ITAT Jaipur found that the only satisfaction recorded by the AO for initiating the section 271A penalty appeared in the original assessment order. The first penalty notice was issued on the same date, and the eventual penalty order itself relied upon the Rs 4.29 lakh estimated addition made in that original assessment. Once the appellate authority set aside that assessment order, the foundation on which the penalty proceedings rested ceased to exist.
The ITAT Jaipur expressly accepted that a default under section 44AA can, in principle, exist independently of additions made during assessment. However, in this particular case, both the AO's satisfaction and the initiation of the section 271A proceedings arose solely from the original assessment order. The fresh assessment, which replaced that order, contained no finding of default under section 44AA and no fresh initiation of penalty under section 271A. The earlier penalty was therefore left without a valid legal foundation.
Accordingly, the ITAT Jaipur deleted the Rs 25,000 penalty and allowed Mr. Narwani's appeal. Importantly, the Tribunal did not decide whether he was actually required to maintain books under section 44AA; it left that question open because the penalty itself failed once the original assessment order on which it rested had been set aside.
ITAT Jaipur order
ITAT Jaipur said they agreed with the Commissioner of Appeals (CIT A) that as a proposition, a default under Section 44AA is distinct from the additions made in an assessment. However, the ITAT Jaipur said that proposition does not answer the issue arising on the facts of this case.
In this case, the satisfaction of the AO and the initiation of the penalty are contained in the original assessment order alone, and the penalty order depends on that.
The ITAT Jaipur said that once that order was set aside, the initiation recorded in it ceased to have any legal existence, and the penalty order resting on it was left without a foundation. The fresh assessment order, which now holds the field, does not supply that foundation.
ITAT Jaipur said the penalty of Rs 25,000 levied under Section 271A cannot be sustained and is directed to be deleted.
ITAT Jaipur said that as the penalty was deleted on this ground, they expressed no opinion on whether Narwani was required to maintain books of account under Section 44AA of the Act or not.