9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1669X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed income at ₹ 8,51,340/- has been accepted by the Assessing Officer in the assessment. 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. - ITA No. 920/PN/2013 - - - Dated:- 26-11-2013 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee filed his return of income on 30-03-2009 declaring income of ₹ 8,51,340/-. Although the gross contract receipts was ₹ 76,97,818/- the date of Audit report mentioned in the Audit report submitted alongwith return of income was 16-01-2009 as against the statutory due date of 31-10-2007. The Assessing Officer noted that a survey action u/s.133A of the Act was carried out at th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt to A.Y. 2007-08. After appointing another Accountant, the accounts were finalised and the audit report was obtained. Therefore, there was a reasonable cause in not obtaining the audit report before the statutory due date. It was further explained that this is the first year for compliance of section 44AB and therefore the penalty proceedings u/s.271B should be dropped. However, the Assessing Of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the CIT(A) that there was a reasonable cause on his part for not getting the accounts audited before the statutory due date. It has been held in various judicial decisions that mere failure to file audit report in time will not justify levy of penalty since power u/s.271B is discretionary. In the instant case, due to the leaving of service by the Accountant the accounts of the assessee could ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
