9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 765X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the noncompliance of mandate. The burden, of course, is on the assessee to prove such reasonable cause with evidential documents so has to take shield against the levy of penalty. Delayed compliance with the mandates of section 44AB of the Act, we have noted all the reasons furthered by the appellant during assessment and appellate proceedings and find them reasonable and convincing for the purpose of section 273B so has to hold the imposition of penalty as unjustified in the light of Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs State of Orissa [ 1969 (8) TMI 31 - SUPREME COURT] - thus direct the Ld. AO to delete the penalty - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.626/PUN/2022 - - - Dated:- 17-2-2023 - Hon ble Shri S. S. Godara, Judicial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iolation of section 44AB r.w.s. 139(1) of the Act. 2.3 Aggrieved assessee, in an appeal before the Ld. NFAC, tried to substantiate the delayed compliance with the letters obtained from tax auditor and newly appointed accountant, however none of them could inspire any confidence in demonstrating reasonable cause for the purpose of section 273B, consequently, the Ld. CIT(A) approbate the action of imposition in the light of Metro Agencies Vs DCIT reported in 45 taxmann.com 97 (Kerala), River View Bar Silver Restaurant Vs CIT reported in 15 taxmann.com 84 (Kerala), CIT Vs Capital Electronics reported in 129 taxman 731 (Calcutta). 2.4 Faced with the situation, the appellant assessee came in appeal challenging the action of both th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duly filed the copy of TAR on record considering the same, the regular assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act. In the event of failure to comply with the mandate of section 44AB within the timelines prescribed therein coupled with failure to prove the reasonable cause delayed compliance, the Ld. TAB imposed and sustained the penalty u/s 271B of the Act. 6. The reasoned delay of four days in filing the present appeal in the larger interest of justice is condoned. 7. In this factual matrix, the adjudication calls to decide as to whether the reasons advanced by the appellant are good reasonable to take shelter u/s 273B of the Act? 8. It is well settled law that, section 273B states notwithstanding anything contained in sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thority to be exercised judiciously and on the consideration of all relevant circumstances even if minimum penalty is prescribed, the authority competent to impose the penalty will be justified in refusing to impose penalty, where there is technical or venial breach of the provision of the Act or where the breach flows from a bonafide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statue (Emphasis supplied) 10. Thus, in the light of aforestated settled legal position, we set-aside the order of Ld. NFAC and direct the Ld. AO to delete the penalty. Resultantly, the appeal of the appellant assessee succeeds. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 the order is pronounced in the open court on this Friday 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
