2016 (9) TMI 962

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing to Rs. 1.00 lac. The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by quashing the penalty of Rs. 1.00 lac imposed u/s 271B of the Act. 2.1 Brief facts as conclusively emerges out from the order of the ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under:- ''2.3 I have considered the facts of the case; penalty order and appellant's written submission. Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s 271B for not getting accounts audited and submitting audit report in time. It is not in dispute that appellant got the accounts audited after due date of filing return of income and therefore, it was liable for penalty unless there were justifiable reasons for delay. Appellant submit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2009-10, the penalty was levied solely relying on the statements recorded from the auditor Shri R.A. Sharma and no opportunity was provided to the assessee to cross examine the statements made by auditor Shri R.A.Sharma. The ld. AR of the assessee relied on following case laws:- (i) Azadi Bachao Andolan vs. Union of India (2001) 252 ITR 471 (Del.) (ii) Indian Handloom Textiles vs. ITO (1999) 68 ITD 560 (Kol. Tribunal) (iii) Aleli & Co. (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, 7 SOT 639 (Mum) (iv) Kripa Industries (I) Ltd. (2002) 76 TTJ 502 (Pune) (v) Ashoka Dairy (2005) 149 Taxman 732 (P&H) (vi) A.K. Kraipak vs. Union of India AIR 1970 SC-150 (vii) Shree Ram Durga Prasad and Fateh Chand vs. Settleme....