9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1181X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... books of account), Annexure - 6 (quantitative details of principle items) and Annexure - 7 (accounting ratios). Hence, the contradictory stand taken by the assessee in the present proceedings that it has got its accounts audited and furnished before/by the specified date deserves to be rejected at the threshold itself.
The decisions relied upon by the assessee are also based on different set of facts and hence the ratio is not applicable to the facts of the present case - Decided against assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... report due to which penalty u/s 271B of the Act was initiated. The assessee was issued a show cause notice on 24.12.2019 in response to which assessee filed reply dated 09.01.2020, which is reproduced at para 3 (page 2) of the penalty order. The assessee had referred to section 273B of the Act and submitted that no penalty can be imposed if there was reasonable cause for the said failure. All three partners were senior citizens and they had no knowledge of compliance and therefore, the audit report was not filed. Subsequently, further show cause notices were issued on 24.02.2021, 09.03.2021, 05.05.2021 and 28.07.2021, but assessee did not respond to any of the notices. Therefore, the Assessing Officer (in short, 'AO') observed that assessee has not brought out any reasonable cause for not furnishing the return of income and audit report even though assessee was liable to get his accounts audited and to furnish the details thereof in the return of income. He also held that ignorance of law is not an excuse in the eyes of law. Therefore, he levied maximum penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- because the turnover was Rs. 8,53,66,166/- and 0.5% of turnover was Rs. 4,26,830/-. The assessee filed a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epartment, 2024 ITL 3055 (Ahd - Trib.) and (iv) Revanta Hometex India Pvt. Vs. CIT, 2023 ITL 2759 (Mum - Trib.). 5. On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) relied on the order of both lower authorities. He submitted that both AO and CIT(A) have given concurrent findings that assessee had not got its books audited u/s 44AB of the Act, though the turnover exceeded the limited specified in the said section. He also referred to the order of CIT(A) where it has been clearly mentioned by the appellant that he could not get the accounts audited due to heavy losses incurred in the first year of operation. He further submitted that the case laws relied upon by the appellant are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We have also deliberated upon the decisions relied upon by the ld. AR. There is no dispute regarding the fact that assessee did not file its return of income for the subject AY.2012-13. The return was filed only pursuant to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act on 27.04.2019. As the assessee failed to furnish the audit report u/s 44AB of the Act, penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6,166/-, which is substantially higher than the limit prescribed u/s 44AB of the Act. 6.1 We also find that the purported tax audit report dated 23.09.2013 enclosed in submission dated 25.11.2024 had not been submitted before the lower authorities. This is clear from orders of both AO and CIT(A). We further find that the assessee has not any enclosed copies of profit and loss account and balance sheet in the submission dated 25.11.2024. It has enclosed Annexure - 4 (fixed assets), Annexure - 1 (profit sharing ratio), Annexure - 2 & 3 (books of account), Annexure - 6 (quantitative details of principle items) and Annexure - 7 (accounting ratios). Hence, the contradictory stand taken by the assessee in the present proceedings that it has got its accounts audited and furnished before/by the specified date deserves to be rejected at the threshold itself. 6.2 The decisions relied upon by the assessee are also based on different set of facts and hence the ratio is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In case of Mugu Services Co-operative Bank (supra), the audit report was furnished during assessment proceedings, but in case of the appellant, the same was not furnished. In th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
