9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 243X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of accounts completed audited in time. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee was prevented by sufficient reasonable cause for not getting the books of accounts audited in time. As relying on APL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS JCIT (OSD) -8(1), MUMBAI [ 2014 (4) TMI 206 - ITAT MUMBAI] we hold that the assessee in the instant case was prevented by reasonable cause in not getting the accounts audited in time and accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty levied u/s 271B of the IT Act. Thus, the ground of appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. - Shri R. K. Panda, Vice President And Shri Vinay Bhamore, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri M. R. Bhagwat For the Revenue : Shri Ramnath P. Mur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e IT Act were initiated. Subsequently, after considering the reply of the assessee, the AO imposed penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- u/s 271B of the IT Act, by observing that the assessee has committed default in obtaining e-filing of the Audit Report before the prescribed due date, without having any reasonable cause. 4. Being unsatisfied with the reply of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee confirmed the penalty u/s 271B of the IT Act as imposed by the Assessing Officer. 5. Being aggrieved with the decision of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. Ld. AR appearing from the side of the assessee submitted before us that the assessee was prevented by reasonable and genuine cause for not getting his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. AR furnished a paper book wherein ITR- V of financial year 2016-17 i.e. Assessment Year 2017-18 and financial year 2017-18 i.e. Assessment Year 2018-19 were enclosed and it was submitted before the Bench that the income tax return of both the above assessment years were furnished on 27.03.2019, which proves that the books of accounts for financial year 2016-17 and financial year 2017-18 were completed in the month of March, 2019. Accordingly, it was submitted before the Bench that the assessee was prevented by above reasonable and sufficient cause (books of accounts for immediate preceding year i.e. Financial Year 2016-17 were not completed), therefore imposition of penalty u/s 271B of the IT Act is unjustified. 7. On the other hand, l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounts completed audited in time. Therefore, considering the totality of the facts of the case we are of the considered opinion that the assessee was prevented by sufficient reasonable cause for not getting the books of accounts audited in time. In this regard, we rely on the decision passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of APL (INDIA) (P) LTD vs. JCIT, ITA No.4796/MUM/2012 order dated 25/10/2013, wherein, the penalty u/s 271B of the IT Act was deleted in identical situation by observing as under :- 3. We have heard both parties and their contentions have carefully been considered. According to section 273B, no penalty shall be imposable on the person or the assessee, as the case may be for any failure which interalia i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is proved, the penalty can be avoided. Therefore, the liability in the form of penalty can be imposed simply on the default if it is not explained by proving reasonable cause for the default. There can not be any proposition conceived of to the extent that if there was a substantive compliance or if there was no absolute default then penalty can not be imposed. But the statute has used the expression may employed in 271B which can not be treated to be mandatory. It has left a discretion that the taxing authority in given facts and circumstances may not impose penalty if they are satisfied that there was sufficient ground for not imposing penalty. But it depends on the facts of each case and having regard to the materials placed before it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance with section 44AB and it was held that the Tribunal was right in cancelling penalty levied under section 271B. 4. In view of our discussion, we are of the opinion that CIT(A) was not right in upholding the levy of penalty under section 271B. Penalty is directed to be deleted. 5. Appeal by the assessee is allowed. 9. Therefore, respectfully following the above decision passed in the case of APL (INDIA) (P) LTD vs. JCIT (supra), we hold that the assessee in the instant case was prevented by reasonable cause in not getting the accounts audited in time and accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- levied u/s 271B of the IT Act. Thus, the ground of appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 10. In th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
