9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 630X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sr. DR ORDER PER CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A), Kottayam dated 06/08/2018 and pertains to assessment year 2013-14. 2. The only issue in this appeal is with regard to levy of penalty u/s. 271B of the Act. 3. The facts of the case are that the gross receipts from business of the assessee for the relevant assessment year was R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the data got erased and no back up date was maintained. The Ld. AR relied on following decisions wherein it was held that filing of report is only directory and not mandatory: a) CIT vs. Malayalam Plantations (103 ITR 835) b) ACIT vs. Amar Chand Raj (89 ITD 96) c) Prem Prakash Senapati vs. ITO (ITAT, Cuttack in ITA 459 & 185/CTK/2017). It was also submitted that there was a reasonable cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Raj Kumar (2004) (89 ITD 96)(ITAT, Chandigarh) iii) Prem Prakash Senapati vs. ITO (ITA No.459&185/CTK/2017 dated 17/04/2018) )(ITAT, Cuttack). 7.1 From the material available on record, we are of the view that the assessee got his books of accounts audited on 28/03/2014 which was made available to the Assessing Officer and no prejudice has been caused to the Revenue. Now the short question t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the assessee. Hence, the said analogy can very well be drawn and used in the penalty proceedings like that of the assessee. To sum up, we hold that the assessee had committed only technical venial breach for which he cannot be penalized. In view of the above, we are inclined to delete the penalty made by the assessee u/s. 271B of the Act. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
