| The Tax Publishers2019 TaxPub(DT) 7890 (Agra-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 271B
Where the assessee had asked for 3 months time for filing the audited reports/documents but had taken more than 3 years to file the same, then there was no reasonable cause for not filing the audited account within time. Thus, penalty under section 271B was rightly levied by AO.
|
Penalty under section 271B - Failure to get accounts audited - Assessee pleaded for extension of time limit -
AO levied penalty under section 271B holding that assessee without any reasonable cause had committed the default by not getting the accounts audited. Further, AO alleged that assessee had ample time (because survey was conducted on 6-5-2008 and due date for filing return was 30-9-2008) to get Xerox copies of the documents impounded by the Department but no such application or attempt was made by the assessee. However, assessee contended that on 22-9-2008, he had filed a letter requesting the AO to supply the copy of the seized document so as to enable him to file the audit report and return of income before the due date. Thereafter, the assessee had also requested the AO to extend the date of filing of the audited account for a period of 3 months vide letter, dated 30-9-2008 as the documents were already in custody of the AO. Held: The assessee vide letter dated 30-9-2008 had asked for 3 months' time for filing the audited reports/documents, however the audited accounts were filed only on 25-3-2011. Thus, there was no plausible reason or cause for not filing the audited account within time. And, as the assessee had taken more than 3 years to file the audited accounts, same was not in accordance with law. Hence, penalty under section 271B was rightly levied by AO.
REFERRED : Hindustan Steel Limited v. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) : 1972 TaxPub(DT) 0009 (SC),CIT v. Triumph International Finance (I) Ltd. (2012) 251 CTR (Boni) 253 (PBP ) : 2012 TaxPub(DT) 2091 (Bom-HC),Staywell Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT & Anr. (2006) 283 ITR 0092 (MP) : 2006 TaxPub(DT) 0317 (MP-HC),ITO v. Babu Lal Jain (2001) 251 ITR 0656 (P&H) : 2001 TaxPub(DT) 1496 (P&H-HC),CIT v. Tea King (2000) 153 CTR 0413 (Guj) : 2000 TaxPub(DT) 0975 (Guj-HC),Raman Gandotra v. DCIT (2015) 45 CCH 0297 (Amr),Sameer Mavji Patel v. Dy. CIT I.T.A No. 414/Mum/2012 vide Order dated 31-1-2013, and Vamana Appanna & Sons v. ACIT (1996) 15 CCH 0325 (Hybd-Trib) : 1997 TaxPub(DT) 0965 (Hyd-Trib)
FAVOUR : Against the assessee
A.Y. : 2008-09 and 2009-10
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|