2017 (6) TMI 433

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ds of appeal and written submission carefully. It is seen that the appellant has not been able to show that it had filed the audit report obtained u/s 44AB for the A.Y. 2013-14. The contention of the appellant that the audit report could not be uploaded due to some technical problem is also not supported with any documentary evidence. Therefore, this contention of appellant is also not found acceptable. No other reasonable cause for non-submission of the audit report has been given by the appellant. In view of these facts, I am of the considered view that the AO has rightly levied the penalty u/s 271B for non-filing of audit report as required u/s 44AB. Accordingly, the penalty levied by the AO is confirmed." 2.2 None appeared on behalf of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ently by the IT Department and there had been occurring some technical problems in fling the eaudit report online and it was understood by the auditors that the report was submitted online but actually the same was unfurnished to the system and there was no conscious breach of law on his part. 4. The assessee has also not breached the law consciously and in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa on 4th Aug. 1969 citations 1970 AIR 253, 1970 SCR (1) that in case there is no conscious breach of law, imposing penalty is not justified, hence the penalty levied u/s 271B in this case is not justified in law. 5. It is undisputed fact that the assessee has submitted the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dered that it was not the fault or misconduct by the assessee, it was not filed by the auditor for whatsoever reason, for that the assessee could not be penalized." 2.3 I have heard the ld. DR and perused the materials available on record including the written submission of the assessee. It is not imperative to repeat the facts of the case as the same had been explicitly narrated by the lower authorities. It is noted that similar type of issue has already been decided by this Bench in the case of Smt. Raj Kumar Bafna vs. ITO (ITA No. 837/JP/2016 for the assessment year 2013-14 vide order dated 14-12-2016) wherein the Bench had allowed the appeal of the assessee on the issue of imposing penalty u/s 271B of the Act by observing as under:- ....