9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1669X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... directed against the order dated 17- 01-2013 of the CIT(A)-I, Thane relating to Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. Levy of penalty of Rs. 38,489/- u/s.271B by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(A) is the only issue raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal. 3. An adjournment petition seeking adjournment of the case was filed which was rejected and the appeal was taken up for hearing. 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on that the assessee has not got its books of account audited as per provisions of section 44AB. He, therefore, asked the assessee to explain as to why penalty u/s.271B shall not be levied. 4.1 In response to the notice issued by the Assessing Officer, it was explained that the Accountant of the assessee left the job during F.Y. 2006- 07. Since the books of accounts were not complete he was not s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve considered the arguments of the Ld. Departmental Representative and perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). In the instant case, we find the assessee has obtained the audit report on 16-01-2009 as against the statutory due date of 31-10-2007. There is no absolute default by the assessee. The explanation of the assessee that the Accountant has left the job in the middle of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment. Considering the totality of the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that this is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s.271B of the I.T. Act, 1961. We, therefore, set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to cancel the penalty. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Pronounced in the Open court at the time of hearing itself, i.e. on 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
