9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 678X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ithin one year from the end of financial year in which order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is received by the Principal CIT - whichever is later. In this case the quantum of penalty to be imposed u/s 271-B was dependent on the outcome of appellate order u/s 250 of the Act in the appeal filed against the assessment order passed by the AO. AO has validly kept the penalty proceedings u/s 27IB of the Act in abeyance and has disposed off the same by 30-10-2017 within the prescribed period after the disposal of appellate order u/s 250 of the Act. The assessee has not furnished any reasonable cause for not getting the accounts audited as required u/s 44AB. It is also noted that the AO has already established for failure of the assessee to get i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax Act, 1961 was completed at an income of ₹ 4,40,600/-. AO observed that as per the provisions of section 44AB of the Act the assessee is under obligation to get its account audited and therefore, a show cause notice u/s. 271B of the Act was issued to the assessee on 17.3.2016 and in compliance to the notice, the assessee filed written submission on 18.4.2016 requesting therein to keep the penalty proceedings in abeyance till the disposal of first appeal. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), Muzaffarnagar who vide order dated 18.5.2017 partly allowed appeal of the assessee and held that the AO has estimated the gross receipts at ₹ 1.40 crore without any basis and upheld that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act and made the penalty @0.5% of ₹ 67,950/- u/s. 271B of the Act vide order dated 30.10.2017. Against the said penalty order, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 27.6.2018 has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved with the impugned order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. During the hearing, Ld. counsel for the assessee has stated that Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the penalty of ₹ 67,950/- although the same was time barred. It was further submitted that the audit u/s. 44AB of the Act should have been done upto 30.9.2013, but audit was done on 13.12.2013 and return was filed on 17.2.2014 suomoto without any notice, hence, no penalty u/s. 271-B of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Appeals) is received by the Principal CIT - whichever is later. In this case the quantum of penalty to be imposed u/s 27I-B of the Act was dependent on the outcome of appellate order u/s 250 of the Act in the appeal filed against the assessment order passed by the AO. Therefore, the AO has validly kept the penalty proceedings u/s 27IB of the Act in abeyance and has disposed off the same by 30-10-2017 within the prescribed period after the disposal of appellate order u/s 250 of the Act. The assessee has not furnished any reasonable cause for not getting the accounts audited as required u/s 44AB of the Act. It is also noted that the AO has already established for failure of the assessee to get its accounts audited or to furnish a report ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
