9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 481X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dited and the assessee got audit report but the same was filed along with returned income which was filed belatedly, penalty could not be imposed under section 271B of the Act. Therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty under section 271B. Also in CIT VS Jagat Rice Mills [ 2005 (3) TMI 824 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] by following its earlier decision in CIT Vs Jai Durga Construction [ 1999 (11) TMI 27 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] also held that penalty under section 271B was not leviable for delay in filing audit report as the assessee had got its accounts audited and obtained the audit report within the time allowed under section 139(1). Thus find that the ratios of the above decisions are squarely applicable on the facts o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see was filed on 29.02.2016 declaring income of Rs.4,93,320/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 03.11.2017 in accepting returned income. Subsequently Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271B by holding that during the course of assessment, it was noted that total turnover of assessee was at Rs.1.38 crores, which was in exceeding of Rs.1.00 crores and assessee was required to furnish audit report under section 44AB on or before due date of filing return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. Notice under section 271B r.w.s 274 dated 03.11.2017 was issued to the assessee as to why penalty @ 0.5% of turnover should not be imposed upon him. The assessee filed his r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5, however, the same was not uploaded on the income-tax web portal and auditor was uploaded it at the time of filing assessee s return of income on 29.02.2016. The assessee was not aware of such technical provision, which requires uploading of audit report before due date. The auditor completed his audit report and handed over the copy to assessee on 24.09.2015. The assessee ought to have uploaded on the system of Department and such mistake was committed on the part of earlier auditor. The assessee further submitted that returned income of assessee was accepted without any variation. The assessee has given bona fide explanation for not getting his books of account timely as his earlier accountant Kuldeep Kathiriya has left the job before f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt in the case of K. Ravindranathan Nair (2009) 319 ITR 108 (Kerala) and further decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Madhuban Chemicals Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CIT (157 TAXMAN 374 (Raj). Further aggrieved the assessee has filed present appeal before Tribunal. 5. I have heard the submission of Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld.AR) for the assessee and learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr DR) for the Revenue. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that in case of assessee, the audit report was filed belatedly i.e. on 29.02.2016, which was filed at the time of filing returned income though assessee was required to file such audit report on or before 30.09.2015. The delay in uploading such audit report was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #39;ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Kwality Skin (supra) and Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of K. Ravindranathan Nair (supra). The ld Sr DR for the revenue submits that the assessee has not shown good cause for not levying the penalty under section 271B. 7. In short rejoinder, Ld. AR for the assessee submits that once the accountant has left the job, the assessee could not obtain his affidavit despite pursuing. The date mentioned on the audit report is clear and self-explanatory that it was ready of 24.09.2015. Even otherwise there as sufficient cause within the scope of Section 273B explained before assessing officer. 8. I have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 271B, are at variance, in the case of Kwality Skin (supra), Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court held that penalty was levied as there was failure on the part of assessee to get the accounts audited. In case of K. Ravindranathan Nair (supra), the penalty under section 271B was upheld as no evidence to justify the delay in filing audit report was given. Similarly in the case of Madhuban Chemicals Fertilizers Ltd. (supra) the audit report was not obtained within a specified date. Thus, the facts of all case laws relied by ld CIT(A) are at variance. Even otherwise when there are conflicting decisions of different Hon'ble High Courts on similar issue, as per the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs Vegetable Product ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
