TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 905X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urnment application was not signed by the chartered accountant and was signed by the clerk working in the firm of the chartered accountant. At least on the first date of hearing, the tribunal could not have rejected the application of the assessee for an adjournment by recording the aforesaid reasons. The tribunal has casually observed that the cause of illness of the accountant, resignation of the employees of the firm and the difference in trial balance are casual and routine excuses and the assessee had not substantiated or proved the cause as aforesaid. We find that the assessee had produced documents on record to show that the accountant and the other employees had resigned during the relevant period and had also produced the original ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the delay in auditing the accounts. The assessee pointed out that the accounts of the firm were maintained manually and the firm was facing shortage of staff due to the serious illness of its accountant, resulting in his resignation after suffering a paralytic attack. It was pointed out by the assessee that there was huge difference in the trial balance and substantial time was lost in locating the same. The assessee stated that the difference in the trial balance was ₹ 86,000/and the staff could not reconcile the same. It was stated by the assessee that the accounts were completed by use of computers on 12.04.1996 and penalty should not be imposed upon the assessee under Section 271B of the Act. The assessing officer did not acce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ranting an opportunity to the appellant. It is submitted that it is casually observed by the tribunal in its order that the illness of the accountant, the resignation of the employee and difference in the trial balance, are casual and routine excuses which did not affect the financing of the accounts and the ultimate audit by the chartered accountant under Section 44AT of the Act. It is stated that it is wrongfully observed by the tribunal that the explanation of the assessee for the delay in auditing the accounts was not substantiated and proved. It is stated that the resignation letter of the employees as well as the original trial balance and the ledgers were produced before the authorities in support of the explanation. It is submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be maintained, specially when there was a huge difference of ₹ 86,000/in the trial balance and it could not be reconciled. For proving the said fact, the assessee had produced the original trial balance and ledger before the authorities. The Commissioner (Appeals), rightly considered the documents placed by the assessee on record to hold that the explanation tendered by the assessee sufficiently explained the delay in not auditing the accounts before the specified date. It appears that on the first date of hearing when time was sought by the assessee as the chartered accountant was ill, the tribunal went in to the niceties of the matter to observe that there was no written authority from the assessee for seeking the adjournment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
