2023 (4) TMI 141

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..../- by the Assessing Officer u/s 271B of the I.T. Act. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of trading in automobile parts under the name and style of 'Durga Automobiles'. She filed her return of income on 13/03/2018 declaring total income of Rs.19,76,250/-. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271B of the Act on 23.6.2021 on the ground that the assessee had filed the audit report on 10.3.2018 which is beyond the extended due date of filing of the return i.e. 7.11.2017 and as such there is a failure on the part of the assessee to file the audit report within the due date. Accordingly, show cause notice was issued to the assessee asking him to explain as to why pena....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....3B of the I.T. Act, 1961, he submitted that since there is a reasonable cause the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271B and confirmed by the CIT (A) is not justified. He also relied on the following decisions: i) Hindustan Steel Ltd vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (S.C) ii) Star Agencies vs. Income Tax Officer (2006) (5 SOT 336) Cochin-Tribunal. 8. The learned DR, on the other hand, heavily relied on the order of the CIT (A). He submitted that the assessee is duty bound to obtain the Audit Report before the specified date. In the instant case, as mentioned earlier, the assessee has obtained its audit report with delay of 123 days therefore, the CIT (A) was fully justified in sustaining the penalty levied by the Assess....