TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 1334
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2008 wherein Assessee surrendered Total amount of Rs. 35,00,000/ -The breakup of Surrender , in the hands of the assessee as mentioned in the Assessment Order was: (a) Under the head 'Stock' ....................................................Rs. 3,00,000/- (b) Under the head 'Investment in Property ......... ..Rs..1,35,000/- (c) Under the head 'On account of Loose Papers' .... Rs. 10,00,000/- 4. Since, no Return of Income was filed by the assessee under section 139, Notice under section 148 was issued in the name of the assessee on 17.09.2010, and ultimately on 28.07.2011 assessee filed Return of Income. In between Notices under section 142(1) were also issued to the assessee which remained uncomplied with therefore, Notice under section 271(1)(b) were also issued to the assessee. 4. Thereafter, a Notice under section 142(1) along with a detailed Questionnaire was issued to the assessee fixing compliance on 28.11.2011. In response to Assessee along with his Chartered Accountant appeared before the AO on 12.12.2011, filed written reply along with Audit Report offering a sum of Rs. 14,33,333/-. The Assessment came to be complet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5.2008 and Return was due to be filed by 30.09.2008. The assessee had ample time to getXerox copies of the documents impounded by the Department but no such application or attempt was made by the assessee. The Ld CIT(A) further held that assessee is assisted by his consultant since beginning and further assessee has did not bother to file even any evidence for the action taken against him by the Food Department . The Ld CIT(A) further noted that it is a fact noted by the AO that assessee has been absconding to avoid penal action against him by the Police. Thus, Ld CIT(A) confirmed penalty of Rs. 42,151/- 10. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the lower authorities the assessee is in appeal before us on the grounds mentioned hereinabove in respect of both the assessment year . 11. The ld. AR for the assessee had submitted that the action on the part of authorities below were highly unjustified in levying and confirming the penalty holding that assessee did not file any Application prior to 30.09.2009 to get Xerox copies of the impounded material without looking to the records and without requiring the assessee that the reply furnished requires to be substantiated with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tax audit report for subsequent assessment years. The delay in obtaining the tax audit report for the assessment years in question was due to delay in obtaining tax audit report for the immediately preceding assessment years. Unless the accounts arefinalised and the tax audit report is obtained for the earlier assessment years it is neither possible nor conceivable to finalisethe accounts as well as to obtain the tax audit report for subsequent years. Admittedly, the tax audit report for the asst. yr. 1985-86 was obtained by the assessee in November, 1990. Immediately thereafter the tax audit report for the asst. yr. 1986-87 was obtained by May, 1991, and within one or two months for the subsequent years. The delay in obtaining the tax audit report for the assessment years in question was clearly due to delay in obtaining tax audit report for the asst. yr. 1985-86. On the above circumstances there isno justification in levying penalty under s. 271B." 14. On the other hand the ld. DR for the revenue had submitted that the order passed by the lower authorities in accordance with law and no interference is required. The ld. DR had drawn our attention to the reply ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... whatsoever in the garb of action taken by the Food Department, however it did not bother file even any evidence for the action taken against it by the Food Department. It is also a fact that is recorded by the AO that the appellant has been absconding to evade the impending penal action against it by the Police Authorities. In such a circumstance, where it is seen that the appellant behavior does not show even a wink of its intention to make compliance as it did not even file the application for having the copies of its documents and for which it has availed offsufficient amount of time therefore it cannot be said that it was prevented by reasonable cause for not getting the accounts audited within the prescribed time limit.Hence the impugned penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- imposed u/s 271B of the Act is held to be justified and accordingly confirmed." 16. We have heard the rival contention of the parties and perused the material available on record. The penalty under section 271B is leviable on on such assessee failed to get his account audited respect of previous years or furnish report of such audit as required under section 44 AB. Section 273B provided an exception to section ....