TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (10) TMI 220
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he brief facts of the case as emanating from records are: The assessee is engaged in the business of dealing in properties and services relating to land and properties. The assessee filed his return of income for the impugned assessment year on 30-03-2009 declaring total income of Rs. 29,51,840/-. Along with the return of income, the assessee filed audited Profit and Loss account, Balance Sheet and Audit Report. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and accordingly notice u/s. 143(2) was issue to the assessee. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 14-12-2010 accepted the income returned by the assessee by making minor disallowance on account of donations Rs. 35,250/- and disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) Rs. 73,700/-. However, the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act on 20TH JANUARY, 2009 whereas the same should have been done before the specified date i.e. 30th September, 2008. The delay was of 3 months and 20 days only. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A), Thane has erred in not considering the submission and explanation furnished before him and confirmed the penalty levied u/s. 271B of the Act. The appellant has reasonable cause which prevented him for not getting books of accounts audited before the specified date. It is apparent on records that: 1. The Tax Audit Report u/s 44AB of the Act for the assessment year 2008-09 has been obtained on 20/01/2009. 2. In view of this the delay was for only 3 months and 20 days. 3. The said appellant was pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant for the last quarter of the year ended on 31.03.2008. The appellant couldn't make necessary entries in its books of account of service charges receivable from M/s. Maxpro Associates. M/s. Maxpro Associates has issued said credit notes in the month of December, 2008 only. The appellant could make necessary entries in its books of account as and when said credit notes are received. The appellant could finalized his books of accounts only after appointing a new accountant and obtaining credit notes from M/s. Maxpro Associates. The auditor of the appellant firm completed his audits after making necessary verification and handed over tax audit report to the appellant firm on 20/01/2009. In view of above reasonable cause....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evenue. d. Your honour, the Appellant has made detailed submission to the Assessing Officer during the course of penalty proceedings vide its letters dated 15/06/2010 in response to its notice u/s. 274 read with Section 271 B of the Act. The copies of letters are enclosed here with for your ready reference and kind perusal. e. Your honour, the appellant was prevented by reasonable cause as mentioned herein above. There is no mens rea of the appellant in the impugned matter. We relied upon the following case laws: The appellant citing the case law of Spectrum Marketing v. ITO humbly submits that there was no deliberate or intentional inaction on the part of the assessee to comply with the requirements of s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of the accounts and the audit of the accounts has been rightly rejected by the authorities below as the same were not supported by any cogent evidence. 5. We have heard the submissions made by the ld. DR and have perused the written submissions furnished on behalf of the assessee and the orders of the authorities below. As per the provisions of section 44AB of the Act the, the assessee was required to get accounts audited for the assessment year under appeal on or before 30-09-2008. However, the assessee could get the accounts audited on 20-01-2009. Thus, there was delay of 3 months and 20 days in getting the accounts audited and obtaining tax audit report u/s. 44AB of the Act. A perusal of the written submissions filed by assessee a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re delay in filing of tax audit report as envisaged u/s. 44AB would ipso facto not attract the penalty where the delay in filing of audit report has been reasonably explained. 6. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Prachin Land Infra Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (supra) in similar circumstances where the Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s. 271B for obtaining the Audit Report on 11-02-2009 as against the statutory date of 31-10-2007, deleted the penalty levied u/s. 271B of the Act. The relevant extract of the findings of the Tribunal are as under : "6.1 ..........It has been held in various decisions that mere failure to file Audit report in time will not justify levy of penalty as power us.271B is discretionary (Hon'ble ....