9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring the financial year 2008-09 due to his ill health leading to acute physical trouble thereby making him immobile, we find that the assessee has indeed adduced proper reasons and is entitled for immunity in terms of Section 273B. We find that in the case of CIT vs. A.N. Arunachalam [1994 (1) TMI 65 - MADRAS High Court] had held that the audit report for claiming deduction u/s 80J though not filed along with return of income but was furnished before the AO before the completion of assessment proceedings, the deduction u/s 80J of the Act could not be denied. It was further held that the stipulation that the audit report is to be filed along with return of income shall not be construed as a mandatory condition for granting deduction u/s 8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iness activities during this period and accordingly could not submit the return of income for the assessment year 2008-09 in time. However, he managed to get his accounts audited and tax audit report in Form 3CB and 3CD was obtained in time on 30.09.2008. The assessee filed his return of income belatedly on 05.01.2009 voluntarily after paying all the taxes. The said return was duly processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The Ld. AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271B of the Act on the ground that the assessee s turnover is more than 40 lacs and accordingly he is liable for tax audit u/s 44AB of the Act and that the said tax audit report is to be filed on or before due date of filing of return of income by the assessee, failing which penalty u/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the non-submission of the tax audit report in time was merely a technical venial breach and no penalty should be imposed for the same. The Ld. AO however did not heed to the contentions of the assessee and proceeded to levy penalty u/s 271B of the Act amounting to ₹ 1 lac which was also confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before us on the following grounds: 1 . That the order of the CIT ( Appeals )- 6 / 1 / Kolkata is absolutely perverse, wrong, illegal and against the principles of natural justice . 2 . That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld . CIT ( A )- 6 / Kol was not justified in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer for imposing penalty o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o account the past conduct of the assessee in filing his return in time voluntarily and the difficulty faced by him during the financial year 2008-09 due to his ill health leading to acute physical trouble thereby making him immobile, we find that the assessee has indeed adduced proper reasons and is entitled for immunity in terms of Section 273B of the Act. Moreover, we find that Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. A.N. Arunachalam reported in 208 ITR 481 had held that the audit report for claiming deduction u/s 80J of the Act though not filed along with return of income but was furnished before the Ld. AO before the completion of assessment proceedings, the deduction u/s 80J of the Act could not be denied. It was further held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
