TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 1116
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r and are being disposed off by this consolidate order. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is an individual, who is engaged in the business of cashew processing and exporting of cashew kernels. For the assessment years 2004-2005, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, the turnover of the assessee was exceeding Rs. 1 crore. As per the provisions of section 44AB of the I. T. Act, the assessee was required to get his books of account audited and file return of income within the prescribed time. The assessee failed to get the books of account audited and belatedly filed his return of income. Hence, penalty proceedings u/s 271B of the I. T. Act were initiated and penalty orders for all the three assessment years mentioned above were....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct matter of appeal, the limitation law as per the proviso to section 275(1)(a) of the I. T. Act would have application and not section 275(1)(c) of the I. T. Act as contended by the assessee. Hence, this common contention raised by the assessee for all the assessment years are rejected. Now we shall consider whether the penalty can be sustained for each of the assessment years. Assessment Year 2004-2005 6. For assessment year 2004-2005, the due date for filing of the audit report was 01. 11. 2004. The return of income along audit report was filed only on31. 03. 2005, i. e. , after a delay of 5 months. The learned Counsel for the assessee relying on the order of the Cochin Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Johns Biwheelers v. ACIT ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....use as prescribed u/s. 273B of the I. T. Act. The Ld. AR relied on the following judgments in support of his contentions: i) CIT vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (1976) (103 ITR 835) (Ker. ) ii) ACIT vs. Amar Chand Raj Kumar (2004) (89 ITD 96)(ITAT, Chandigarh) iii) Prem Prakash Senapati vs. ITO (ITA No. 459 & 185 /CTK/ 2017 dated 17/04/2018) )(ITAT, Cuttack). 7. 1 From the material available on record, we are of the view that the assessee got his books of accounts audited on 28/03/2014 which was made available to the Assessing Officer and no prejudice has been caused to the Revenue. Now the short question that arises is whether in this scenario, penalty u/s. 271B of the Act can be levied or not. In our considere....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the above said proposition, the learned AR had relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Bisauli Tractors [(2008) 299 ITR 0219 (All. )]. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court had observed that separate penalty proceedings has been provided for nonmaintenance of account u/s 271A of the I. T. Act, whereas, for not getting the accounts audited and not furnishing the audit report, the penalty to be imposed is u/s 271B of the I. T. Act. It was held by the Hon'ble High Court that the if a person has not maintained the accounts book or any accounts the question of its audit does not arise and in such an event the imposition of penalty is under the provision contained in section 271A of the I. T. Act. Therefore, ....