TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (10) TMI 365
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,88,33,300/-. During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee firm submitted a revised computation of income after auditing the books of account u/s.44AB. In the said revised computation, total income was declared at Rs. 5,33,87,722/-. The income was revised on account of disallowance of donation and disallowance of service charges u/s.40(a)(ia). For the year under consideration, the assessee firm carried out the business of purchasing of land for the prospective customers in Raigad District especially in and around Panvel. The assessee firm mainly purchased land for Hiranandini group. During the impugned year the assessee has shown sales at Rs. 48,30,40,349/-. After claiming depreciation, bad debts and other business expenses the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... It was submitted that the accounts for the A.Y. 2007-08, i.e. preceding assessment year was obtained on 11-02-2009 and the audit for the year under consideration could be completed only after the audit for the preceding assessment year has been completed. The assessee reiterated leaving of the job by the Accountant. It was further submitted that there was no absolute default by the assessee as the assessee has atleast obtained the tax audit report u/s.44AB after the specified due date. Relying on various decisions of the different Benches of the Tribunal it was submitted that levy of penalty u/s.271B should be deleted. 6. However, the CIT(A) was also not satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee. He noted that though the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the CIT(A). He also relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Prachin Land Infra Pvt. Ltd. vide ITA No.917/PN/2013 order dated 26-11-2013 for A.Y. 2007-08. 8. The Ld. Departmental Representative on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the CIT(A). He submitted that the facts in A.Y. 2006-07 and 2007-08 are different from the facts of the impugned assessment year. The assessee has not filed any evidence to substantiate his claim that the Accountant has left the job for which the books of account could not be audited before the specified ate. He submitted that various decisions relied on by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee are not applicable to the facts of the present case. He submitted that since the assessee has vi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the impugned assessment year before the specified due date, i.e. 30-09-2008. Therefore, there is a reasonable cause in not getting the accounts audited before the specified date. 10. We find some force in the above submission of the assessee. It is an admitted fact that penalty was levied u/s.271B in A.Yrs. 2006-07 and 2007-08 for not getting the accounts audited before the specified date. However, the Tribunal vide order dated 27-11- 2013 has deleted such penalty levied u/s.271B for A.Yrs. 2006-07 and 2007-08. Therefore, we find some force in the submission of the assessee that when the accounts of the A.Y. 2007-08 was audited on 11-02-2009, it was not possible to obtain the tax audit report u/s.44AB for A.Y. 2008-09 before 30-09-2008.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-07 has not been controverted by the Revenue. We, therefore, find some force in the submission of the assessee before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) that there was a reasonable cause on his part for not getting the accounts audited before the statutory due date. It has been held in various judicial decisions that mere failure to file audit report in time will not justify levy of penalty since power u/s.271B is discretionary. In the instant case, due to the leaving of service by the Accountant the accounts of the assessee could not be finalised in time for which there was delay in getting the audit report and finally the assessee has obtained the audit report on 16-01-2009. Further, the returned income at Rs. 8,51,340/- has been accept....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- 2009 and filed the return of income on 30-03-2009, which is not in dispute. We find the Assessing Officer levied the penalty u/s.271B for delay in getting the Audit report u/s.44AB. 6.1 We find some force in the submission of the assessee before the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) regarding the reasons for not getting the accounts audited before the statutory date on the ground that till the date of finalization of the accounts and audit no agreement could be reached with M/s. Marathon Prachin Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. regarding the prices at which the lands would be transferred and the contract was at stake about its further continuation. Due to such uncertainties about the profits on the business transactions no income could b....