https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313935 The HC upheld penalty u/s 271B for delayed filing of audit report u/s 44AB. The assessee argued that jurisdiction transfer from Bharatpur to Jaipur IT Department occurred without proper notice, preventing timely filing. However, the assessee failed to provide evidence of attempting to file returns at Bharatpur office and did not challenge the jurisdictional transfer. The assessee submitted to Jaipur jurisdiction by filing returns and appearing regularly before Dy. CIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur. Without acceptable explanation or supporting evidence for the delay, the minimum penalty of Rs. 1 lakh was correctly imposed and sustained by the Tribunal. en-us Wed, 12 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 May 2024 20:12:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313935 The HC upheld penalty u/s 271B for delayed filing of audit report u/s 44AB. The assessee argued that jurisdiction transfer from Bharatpur to Jaipur IT Department occurred without proper notice, preventing timely filing. However, the assessee failed to provide evidence of attempting to file returns at Bharatpur office and did not challenge the jurisdictional transfer. The assessee submitted to Jaipur jurisdiction by filing returns and appearing regularly before Dy. CIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur. Without acceptable explanation or supporting evidence for the delay, the minimum penalty of Rs. 1 lakh was correctly imposed and sustained by the Tribunal. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 12 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313935