TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... explanation offered by the assessee can be taken as a reasonable cause for his failure to file the audit report within time. We are also aware that the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) only on 29.3.2015 and on that date, the audit report was very much available with the Assessing Officer. We find that the non filing of the tax audit report before 30.9.2012 is a technical breach and admittedly, the assessee filed the audit report along with the return of income on 31.3.2013 and that the assessment was framed by the Assessing Officer only on 29.3.2015, on which date, the audit report was very much on the file of the Assessing Officer. Thus, we are of the view that the explanation offered by the assessee can be accepted as a r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent Revenue. 4. The short issue, which falls for consideration, is as to whether the appellant had shown sufficient cause for not filing the audit report before the last date for filing the same namely 30.9.2012. 5. The assessee filed the audit report along with the return of income on 31.3.2013. The assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 29.3.2015. Since the audit report was not filed before the last date namely 30.9.2012, penalty has been levied on the assessee under Section 271B of the Act vide order dated 29.9.2015 to the tune of ₹ 1.5 lakhs. Aggrieved by that, the assessee carried the matter by way of appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Chenn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his Court is of the view that the explanation offered by the assessee can be taken as a reasonable cause for his failure to file the audit report within time. We are also aware that the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act only on 29.3.2015 and on that date, the audit report was very much available with the Assessing Officer. 11. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Hindustan Steel Limited Vs. State of Orissa [reported in (1972) 83 ITR 26], considered the validity of levy of penalty under the provisions of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947. One of the questions, which was framed for consideration was as to whether imposition of penalty for failure to register as a dealer was justified. The Hon'ble Apex C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
