TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 481
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') dated 27.02.2018. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- "1. On the facts of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), has erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in imposing penalty of Rs.69,210/- u/s 271B of the I.T.Act, 1961. 2. It is therefore prayed that penalty imposed by assessing officer and confirmed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) may please be deleted. 4. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal." 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is engaged in the trading of sarees and embroidery hand work in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to avoid the consequence. The assessee has not filed audit report before the due date of filing the returned income under section 139(1). Thus, penalty @ 0.5% on the total sales of assessee is leviable. The Assessing Officer levied the penalty of Rs.69,210/- on gross receipt of Rs.1.38 crores in his order dated 27.02.2018. 3. Aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The case of assessee migrated to NFAC/Ld. CIT(A). Before NFAC/Ld. CIT(A). Before ld CIT(A), the assessee filed his submission. The submission of assessee is recorded in para-4 of the order of NFAC/Ld. CIT(A). The assessee in his submission, submitted that assessee was required to upload audit report before due date of filing return of income ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....relied upon the decisions of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jagat Rice Mills (2006) 160 TAXMAN 0005 (All) and Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Apex Laboratories (P.) Ltd. (2006) 284 ITR 364 (Mad) and CIT vs. Apex Laboratories (P.) Ltd. 320 ITR 498 (Mad). 4. The NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee held that turnover of assessee was exceeding Rs.1.00 crore of the specified limit as per provision of Section 44AB. The assessee failed to comply the said Section 44AB and accordingly liable for penalty under section 271B of the Act. The NFAC/ Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of Assessing Officer by referring the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....b and no prejudice was caused to the revenue rather the Assessing Officer completed the assessee after going through the audit report in accepting the returned income of assessee. To support his submission, Ld. AR for the assessee relied on the case law which was relied before NFAC/Ld. CIT(A). 6. On the other hand, Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue supported the order of lower authorities. The Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue submits that assessee has not given any evidence that his earlier account left the job or not and no affidavit of such accountant was filed either before Assessing Officer or before NFAC/Ld. CIT(A). Further there is no evidence that audit report was prepared before 30.09.2015. The Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue submits that in para-5 to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it report but the same was filed along with returned income which was filed belatedly, penalty could not be imposed under section 271B of the Act. Therefore, I direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty under section 271B. the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in CIT VS Jagat Rice Mills (supra) by following its earlier decision in CIT Vs Jai Durga Construction (245 ITR 857 -All) also held that penalty under section 271B was not leviable for delay in filing audit report as the assessee had got its accounts audited and obtained the audit report within the time allowed under section 139(1). I find that the ratios of the above decisions are squarely applicable on the facts of the present case. 10. I find that the case law relied by Ld. Sr-D....