9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowing grounds before us: (1) On the facts and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in upholding levy of penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- u/s 271B of the Income Tax Act for non-furnishing of Tax Audit Report without considering the fact that details of Tax Audit Report were duly uploaded (including name of Auditor, M. No. of Auditor, date of Audit Report etc.) along with Income Tax Return filed online on 17.09.2011. (2) On the facts and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in upholding addition penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- u/s 271B of the Income Tax Act by Order dt. 20.01.2020 after observing that Audit Report in Form 3 CD was not submitted before her although Tax Audit Report dt. 05.08.2011 along with Audited Financial Statements, ITR set clearly mentioning ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the course of the penalty proceedings did not come forth with any explanation as to why he had not furnished the audit report during the course of the assessment proceedings, therefore, the A.O vide his order u/s 271B, dated 30.05.2017 imposed on him a penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/-. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the order passed by the A.O u/s 271B before the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) not finding any merit in the contentions of the assessee upheld the penalty imposed and dismissed the appeal, observing as under: "7.4 On careful consideration of the facts of the case and material on record an on perusal the penalty order as well as the submission of the appellant, I find that the fact that the total sales/turnover in the impugned a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and circumstances of the case, I concur with the views of the AO that the accounts of the business carried on by the appellant during the impugned assessment year has not been audited as mandated by the provisions of section 44AB and that there was no reasonable cause as envisaged by section 273B for violating the provisions of section 44AB. Thus, it is a fit case for levy of penalty under section 271B. I hereby confirm the penalty amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- imposed u/s.271B by the AO. Accordingly, the appellant's ground of appeal stands dismissed." 6. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that the A.O failing to appreciate that the tax a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee has assailed the claim of the revenue that the notice that was sent through postal authorities was returned unserved with the remarks "not known". Backed by the aforesaid facts, the assessee had therein tried to explain as to why he had failed to participate in the course of the proceedings before the lower authorities. Further, as regards the default for which the penalty had been imposed on the assessee u/s 271B of the Act, we find, that it is the claim of the assessee that he had duly got his accounts audited u/s 44AB of the Act and had uploaded the audit report in form No. 3CB and form 3CD as per mandate of law a/w his return of income that was filed online on 17.09.2011. It is further stated before us, that though the aforesa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
