TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 962X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter the assessee filed the return on 26-05-2009. It is noted from the records that the assessee was not provided opportunity by the lower authorities to cross examine the statements given by Shri R.A. Sharma, Auditor of the firm and the assessee was deprived of countering Shri R.A. Sharma, Auditor. It appears from the discussions held hereinabove that the delay made by the assessee firm in filing the return of income is for the first time i.e. in A.Y. 2008-09 which was on account of dispute of audit fee between the assessee and the auditor. Hence, it appears that the dispute with the statutory auditor is a reasonable cause within the meaning of Section 273B as held in the case of Kripa Industries (I) Ltd. vs. JCIT (2001 (10) TMI 300 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income and therefore, it was liable for penalty unless there were justifiable reasons for delay. Appellant submitted that delay was caused by the auditor with whom it had dispute over audit fees. Appellant also submitted that it is for the first time such delay happened and after this year auditor was also changed. However, Assessing Officer examined the auditor to verify the appellant s explanation. On examination, AO reached the conclusion that the delay in audit was caused by late submission of accounts by the assessee to the auditor. Auditor confirmed that there was no dispute over fees and therefore, it was not the reason for delay in audit. Delay was caused by the appellant only by submitting accounts on 30-09-2009 resulting in delay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nion of India AIR 1970 SC-150 (vii) Shree Ram Durga Prasad and Fateh Chand vs. Settlement Commissioner 1989-SC-1038 (viii) Andaman Timber Industries (Civil Apeal No. 4228 of 2006) The ld. AR of the assessee prayed for quashing the penalty imposed by the lower authorities. 2.3 The ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 2.4 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. It is noted from the records that the assessee firm filed the return of income for the assessment year 2008-09 on 23-05-2009 through e-filing and copy of ITR-V was filed on 26-05-2009. The assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed on 27-12-2010 and penalty proceedings u/s 271B of the Act were initia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
