TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (12) TMI 1108
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ling of each of the above 3 appeals by the assessee for which separate condonation petition for condoning the delay has been filed. After hearing both the sides the delay in filing of the appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication. ITA No.1399/PN/2011 (R.R. Builders Pvt. Ltd. (A.Y. 2006-07) : 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a Pvt. Ltd. Company and is engaged in the business of land dealing. A search and seizure action u/s.132 of the Income Tax Act was carried out in the case of Rahul Ramdas Tupe who is one of the Director of this company. Survey operation u/s.133A of the Act was also simultaneously carried out in the business premises of the assessee. Notice u/s.142(1) was issued to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of the assessee that the auditor was changed and the previous auditor was not ready to give his NOC. He was of the opinion that pre-occupation of the working Director of the assessee company with some business dispute cannot be an excuse for compliance to statutory obligation of filing audit report within due time. He further noted that the assessee has not explained as to why the accounts were audited in August 2008 when the dispute was settled during December 2007. Further, year of taxability of income simply cannot be an excuse for not getting the accounts audited before the stipulated date. Since the assessee could not satisfy the Assessing Officer with reasonable cause for not getting the accounts audited the Assessing Officer levie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the part of the assessee for not getting the accounts audited before the statutory date, the penalty levied u/s.271B has been deleted. Various courts have taken liberal view in this account. He accordingly submitted that the penalty levied by the AO u/s.271B and sustained by the CIT(A) should be deleted. 8. The learned Departmental Representative on the other hand relied heavily on the order of the CIT(A). He submitted that the submission of the assessee that there was a change in the auditor is not borne out of records. The assessee has not given the copy of the letter appointing the new auditor. No evidence what so ever was submitted before the AO or CIT(A) or even now before the Tribunal to substantiate that the delay in obtaining ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Paper Book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. There is no dispute to the fact that the assessee has not obtained the audit report u/s.44AB nor furnished the same before the statutory date. There is also no dispute to the fact that the audit report signed by the auditors in the instant case is dated 01-08-2008. The assessee is required to get its accounts audited before the specified date and furnish by that date the report of such audit in the prescribed form duly signed and verified by such accountant and setting forth such particulars as may be prescribed. The specified date in the instant case is 31st of October 2006. Due to default in obtaining the audit report and furnish....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as the second submission of the learned counsel for the assessee that the director, who is looking after the accounts, was tied up with court litigation we find the court order disposing of the suit upon withdrawal of the suit by KDB is dated 14-12-2007 whereas the accounts were audited on 01-08-2008. The above details are as per the event chart filed by the assessee in the Paper Book Page 1. On a pointed query by the Bench the learned counsel for the assessee could not substantiate the delay between 14-12-2007 till 01-08-2008. Therefore, even if the submission of the learned counsel for the assessee that the delay was due to court litigation is accepted, even then also the assessee failed to substantiate the reason for delay between Decemb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... lakhs u/s.271B of the Income Tax Act by the AO. 11. After hearing both the sides we find the facts and arguments in the instant case are identical to ITA No.1399/PN/2011. We have already decided the issue and the penalty levied by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) has been upheld. Following the same ratio, the order of the CIT(A) confirming the penalty levied by the AO u/s.271B amounting to Rs. lakh is upheld and the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. ITA No.1401/PN/2011 (Rahul Ramdas Tupe) : 12. The assessee in its only effective ground has challenged the order of the CIT(A) in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs.23,251 u/s.271B by the AO. 13. After hearing both the sides we find the facts in the instant case are id....