9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 994X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been made available before the AO, before completion of the assessment proceedings, then the assessee should be granted deduction u/s 80J of the Act. We observe that this decision was rendered in the context of adjudication of quantum of deduction of the assessee. Hence the said analogy could very well be drawn and used in a penalty proceedings like that of the assessee. As assessee had committed only technical venial breach for which he could not be penalized. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 2436/Kol/2017 - - - Dated:- 1-1-2019 - Sri S.S. Godara, Judicial Member Sri M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Smt. Saswati Mitra Dutta, Advocate For the Revenue : Shri Sankar Halder, Addl. CIT D/R. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax auditor. The assessee also placed on record the medical certificate dt. 03/11/2013, stating that the assessee was sick from 28/09/2013 to 02/11/2013. Accordingly, the tax audit report could not be obtained from the tax auditor for uploading the same along with the return of income. This reason was not found satisfactory by the authorities below. The ld. CIT(A) found that before the ld. Assessing Officer, the assessee had blamed the auditor for not auditing the accounts and before the ld. CIT(A), the blame was taken by the assessee himself on the ground that his medical condition was not fit enough to get the accounts tax audited. The ld. CIT(A) found this divergent stand taken by the assessee before him and before the ld. Assessing Offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. A.N. Arunachalam [1994] 208 ITR 481 (Madras); in the context of filing of audit report for claiming deduction u/s 80J of the Act, had observed that once the audit report has been made available before the ld. Assessing Officer, before completion of the assessment proceedings, then the assessee should be granted deduction u/s 80J of the Act. 4.1.1. We observe that this decision was rendered in the context of adjudication of quantum of deduction of the assessee. Hence the said analogy could very well be drawn and used in a penalty proceedings like that of the assessee. To conclude, we hold that the assessee had committed only technical venial breach for which he could not be penalised. In view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
