9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there were raids and seizures. Due to this, the Appellant couldn't file the audit report within the prescribed period. Still, it is not as if the Appellant was indolent. All steps were possible in the circumstances that were being taken and were taken. The Appellant applied for copies of the books and, upon receiving them, submitted them to their chartered accountants. The Chartered Accountants naturally took some time to prepare the audit report. The audit report was prepared only on 8 December 1988 and filed on the next date. In our judgment, the factors above should have been considered. These factors were additional to the factors that the Tribunal already accepted in the case of the Appellant's sister's concerns. These additional fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etics Private Limited and M/s. Orlando Synthetic Industries Private Limited by the Tribunal. She submitted that there was no substantial difference between the cause shown in the case of the two sister concerns and the present Appellant. The mere circumstance that the delay in the Appellant's case was longer than the delay in the case of the sister concerns was not a ground to impose the maximum penalty under Section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Ms Hariya submitted that the audited accounts for Assessment Year 1985-1986 were finalised, and the return of income was filed on 13 January 1986. She submitted that this Appeal concerns Assessment Year 1986-1987 and, consequently, is related to the previous year 1985-1986. She pointed out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disputed this fact, and even the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has accepted it. 9. The sister concerns filed their tax returns and audit report with some delay. Penalty proceedings were initiated against them; however, the cause they showed was ultimately accepted, and no penalty was imposed on them. 10. The cause shown by the present Appellant is not substantially different from the cause shown by the sister concerns. The delay is longer than the delay involved in the case of Appellant's sister concerns. But ultimately, in these matters, the length of the delay is only one of the considerations. However, the main consideration is the quality of the cause shown. 11. Besides, Ms Hariya pointed out that after the accounts were filed for As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
