9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 617X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 007 and 03.10.2007 respectively. 2. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Ld. CITA is justified in upholding the levy of penalties u/s. 271B and 271F of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The brief facts of this issue are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of trading in iron and steel. The return of income for AY 2005-06 was filed by the assessee on 28.09.2006 along with tax audit report although the due date for filing return of income was 31.10.2005. The assessee explained the following reasons for the delay in filing the return of income and delayed filing of tax audit report for AY 2005-06: "The real fact to delay in filing Income Tax Return as well as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed our Accountant After this incidence our Accountant left the job. Sir, our humble request please do not impose any penalty u/s 271B and u/s 271F of The Income Tax Act 1961 as we are in very financial crisis. We had no any intention to file the return. We always filed our return in time thereafter i.e. from A. Y 2006-2007 to till A. Y. 2013-2014. We inform you that never we done such type of mistake in future. We also inform you that our accounts already declare NPA by the Bank as per RBI guideline and court case was proceeding against our company with Debts Recovery Tribunal No. -1, Kolkata vide case no. OA 478 of 2012. We are enclosing herewith the relevant documents for your perusal." 4. The Ld. AO did not convince with the reply gi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ef placed by the assessee on its erstwhile Accountant which cannot be doubted with. In response to this, the Ld. DR argued that it is very unlikely that assessee having claimed to have complied with ROC formalities in time and not complied with income tax formalities. He placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Metro Agencies Vs. DCIT reported in (2014) 45 Taxmann.com 97 (Ker) in support of his contentions. 5. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts stated hereinabove remained undisputed and hence, the same are not reiterated for the sake of brevity. We find that the reasoning given by the assessee that it had placed reliance on its erstwhile accountant is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... far as the assessee's partnership firm. Apart from that, the cause for the delay is the absence of accountant on various dates, therefore, they could not finalise the accounts in order to file the audit report in time. There is nothing on record to show that as and when the said accountant who was on leave returned for duty he had failed to enter the accounts. Even otherwise, once proper documents for conducting the partnership business of the assessee are maintained, it would not be difficult for the assessee to engage services of another accountant to finalise the accounts in order to file returns and then submit the audit report. According to him, finalisation of accounts is delayed till December, 2005, therefore, audit report could ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
