9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 848X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kumar, JCIT-DR ORDER PER GEORGE GEORGE K, JM : This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)'s order dated 24.08.2022 passed u/s 250 of the I.T.Act. The relevant assessment year is 2017-2018. 2. The solitary issue that is raised is whether the CIT(A) is justified in confirming penalty imposed u/s 271B of the I.T.Act amounting to Rs.1,50,000. 3. The brief facts of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same, penalty was imposed u/s 271B of the I.T.Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the first appellate authority. Before the first appellate authority, there was no appearance/compliance to the notices issued. Consequently, the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order by confirming the penalty imposed u/s 271B of the I.T.Act. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arise. The Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Surajmal Parsuram Todi v. CIT reported in (1996) 222 ITR 691 (Gau) had held that when the assessee is liable to pay penalty u/s 271A of the I.T.Act, penalty u/s 271B of the I.T.Act cannot be levied for non-furnishing of audit report. The relevant finding of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, reads as follows:- "We have gone through the provision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the records that the assessee failed to maintain the books of account as required under Section 44AA and for that penalty is prescribed under Section 271A. It is for the Tribunal to take action in accordance with law." 7. A similar view has also been held by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Bisauli Tractors reported in (2008) 299 ITR 219 (All.), wherein it is held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
