9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent : Mr.P.Radhakrishnan,JCIT, D.R ORDER Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member All these four appeals by the assessee are directed against the common order of the CIT(A)-8, Chennai, dated 02.11.2015 for assessment years 2007-08 to 2010-11. Since common issues arise in all these appeals, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. The only grievance of the assessee in these appeals is with regard to confirming the penalty levied u/s.271BA of the Act by the CIT(A) for failure of furnish a report from Accountant as required by Sec.92E of the Act at `1 lakh for each assessment years. 3. The facts of the case in all these appeals are similar that the assessee filed return of income relevant in the assessment years 2007-08 to 2010-11. Show cause notices were issued on 04.07.2012 as to why penalty u/s.271BA should not be levied in the case of the assessee for belated filing of Form No.3CEB for all these assessment years. In response, the assessee submitted to the AO that the Form No.3CEB was obtained within the prescribed due date but did not furnish the same to the ITO under a bona fide belief that the ele ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e resignation of the secretary and this claim of the assessee has not been found to be false. The assessee admittedly is a corporate entity. The assessee can function only through its employees. If an employee leaves the services of the assessee company getting another employee to take over the job and get acclimatized and familiar to the functions originally done by the earlier employee would take time. This would be a reasonable cause. It is noticed that the Id. CIT(A) has also accepted this as reasonable cause. The claim of the assessee has also not been found to be false. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the Id. CIT(A) was right in deleting both the penalties u/s 271AA and 271G of the Act. Our view is also supported by the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of SSLTTK Ltd referred to supra. In the circumstances, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Further, the ld.A.R relied on the order of Delhi Tribunal in the case of M/s.Open Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT in ITA No.1688/Del./2010 vide order dated 15.06.2010 wherein penalty levied u/s.271B was held by observing as follows:- 6.2 We can gainfully refer to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndered by a larger Bench comprising of three of their Lordships in the case of Hindustan Steel vs. State of Orissa in 83 ITR 26 wherein it was held that: An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceedings, and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. Penalty will not also be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. Whether penalty should be imposed or failure to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exercised judicially and on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. Even if a minimum penalty is prescribed, the authority competent to impose the penalty will be justified in refusing to impose penalty, when there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act, or where the breach flows from a bonafide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute. 10. In the background of the aforesaid discussion and precedent, we set aside t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... return of income after duly audited by the chartered accountant, what prevented the assessee to prepare the audit report under section 92E is also not clear from the argument of the assessee. The assessee has been assisted by competent legal professionals and chartered accountants and we do not find any reason as to how the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause to prepare the audit report from chartered accountant and furnish the same to the authorities as stipulated under section 92E. The reason given by the assessee herein is too general in nature and the failure to furnish the audit report as per the provisions of section 92E is totally attributable to the gross negligence of the assessee and there is no good and sufficient reason in not filing the audit report within the stipulated time. The assessee herein could not show any reasonable cause in not filing of the audit report in time. 6.3 The reason explained by the assessee herein above could not be considered as reasonable cause in terms of Section 273 B of the Act not in filing the Audit Report in time. The same view is taken by Co-ordinate Bench of Hyderabad Tribunal in the case of M/s.GI Systems Org. (India) (P) L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
