TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ified date and furnish the same by that date – Decided against assessee. - ITA Nos.1399,1400/PN/2011 - - - Dated:- 28-2-2013 - Shailendra Kumar Yadav and R K Panda, JJ. For the Appellant: Sri Kishor Phadke For the Respondent: Sri D S Kothari ORDER:- Per: Bench: The above appeals filed by the respective assessees are directed against the separate orders dated 25-05-2011 of the CIT(A) Central, Pune for the respective assessment years. Levy of penalty u/s.271B by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(A) is the only issue in all the 3 appeals filed by the respective assessees. 2. There was a delay of 61 days in filing of each of the above 3 appeals by the assessee for which separate condonation petition for condoning the delay has been filed. After hearing both the sides the delay in filing of the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication. ITA No.1399/PN/2011 (R.R. Builders Pvt. Ltd. (A.Y. 2006-07) : 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a Pvt. Ltd. Company and is engaged in the business of land dealing. A search and seizure action u/s.132 of the Income Tax Act was carried out in the case of Rahul Ramdas Tupe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccounts audited the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs. 1 lakh u/s.271B of the Income Tax Act for failure to comply with the requirements u/s.44AB of the Income Tax Act. 5. In appeal the learned CIT(A) distinguishing the various decisions cited before him upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. The learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the same submissions as made before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). Referring to Page 1 of the Paper Book he drew the attention of the Bench to the event chart and submitted that due to dispute between the assessee and Karia Developers and Builders for sale of land at Hadapsar the matter went upto court for deciding the issue. Due to the same, the director of the assessee company Sri Rahul Ramdas Tupe, who is incharge of looking after accounts, was disturbed and therefore could not devote time for finalisation of the accounts. Further, there was a change in the auditor of the assessee company and due to non receipt of NOC from the previous auditors there was some delay. 7. The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty levied by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) should be upheld. 9. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and the CIT(A) and the Paper Book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. There is no dispute to the fact that the assessee has not obtained the audit report u/s.44AB nor furnished the same before the statutory date. There is also no dispute to the fact that the audit report signed by the auditors in the instant case is dated 01-08-2008. The assessee is required to get its accounts audited before the specified date and furnish by that date the report of such audit in the prescribed form duly signed and verified by such accountant and setting forth such particulars as may be prescribed. The specified date in the instant case is 31st of October 2006. Due to default in obtaining the audit report and furnishing of the same before the specified date the Assessing Officer in the instant case has levied penalty u/s. 271B amounting to Rs.1 lakh which has been upheld by the learned CIT(A). 9.1 It is the case of the assessee that there was a reasonable cause in obtainin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... excuse for not getting the accounts audited even after a period of over two years. It certainly cannot take such a long time to decide the issue of taxability of an item in a particular year. 9.5 As per the provisions of section 273B no penalty u/s.271B shall be imposable on the assessee for any failure referred to in the said provisions if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure. In the instant case the assessee could not explain any reasonable cause for not getting the accounts audited before the specified date and furnish the same by that date. Therefore, under the facts and circumstances of the case the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s.271B and sustained by the CIT(A) in our opinion is justified. We accordingly uphold the order of the CIT(A). The ground raised by the assessee is accordingly dismissed. ITA No.1400/PN/2011 (Rahul Ramdas Tupe) : 10. The assessee in the only effective ground of appeal has challenged the order of the CIT(A) in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs. 1 lakhs u/s.271B of the Income Tax Act by the AO. 11. After hearing both the sides we find the facts and arguments in the instant case are identical to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
