9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2.2010. The penalty proceedings were initiated after 23 months and 26 days from the date of assessment order and order u/s 271B was passed on 28.06.2013. There is a delay of filing of return of income and audit report by two months and 11 days. The return of income and audit report u/s 44AB was filed much before the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 was completed. According to us, the assessee had only committed a technical venial breach, which does not create any loss to the exchequer as the audit report was available to the Assessing Officer well before the completion of the assessment proceedings. On identical facts, the Cochin Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Johns Biwheelers v. ACIT [ 2019 (3) TMI 630 - ITAT COCHIN] h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... treatment. During the period he was not able to attend the matters of business diligently. Only after the bed rest he could finalize the accounts and get them audited. The AO erred in considering this post treatment bed rest and his genuine inability to complete the audit in time. 4. We also rely on the decision of the Hon. ITAT (Hyd) in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income tax vs Gayatri Traders wherein it had ruled that A cause which a reasonable man accepts as a reasonable one can be taken as a reasonable cause. The expression reasonable cause requires to be interpreted liberally in a fair and reasonable manner so as to advance the cause of justice, since a harsh legalistic approach should be mitigated by a so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) was of the view that there was no reasonable cause as mandated u/s 273B of the I.T.Act, and therefore, the penalty u/s 271B of the I.T.Act was correctly imposed. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed this present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR reiterated the submissions made before the Income-tax authorities. As regards the additional ground raised, detailed written submission was filed stating that the penalty proceeding is barred by limitation in view of the provisions of section 275 of the I.T.Act. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative supported that the orders passed by the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). 6. We have heard the rival submissions a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eturn of income u/s. 44AB within the due date of 30/09/2013 for the assessment year 2013-14. However, the audit report was furnished only on 28/03/2014. The contention of the Ld. AR was that the delay in filing the return of income was due to damage to computer system due to virus infection which is a reasonable cause as prescribed u/s. 273B of the I.T. Act. The Ld. AR relied on the following judgments in support of his contentions: i) CIT vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (1976) (103 ITR 835) (Ker.) ii) ACIT vs. Amar Chand 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
