TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (6) TMI 483
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....due date for filing the return of income. 2. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of bakery and confectionary products through its proprietorship concern under the name of Anjlika Pastry Shop & Anjlika Bakers and Confectioners. The total business receipts during the year under consideration were Rs. 2,72,07,135/-, which exceeds Rs. 1 crores and thus the provisions of section 44AB were applicable to the assessee and the assessee was required to get his books of accounts audited and furnish the tax audit report on or before 30.09.2017. The CBDT vide press release dated 31st October 2017, further extended the due date of filing tax audit report from 30.09.2017 to 07....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Thus, delay was not intentional but was because of the accountant leaving the job suddenly and thus the delay was by reason beyond the control of the assessee. 4. The assessee vide reply dated 14.06.2021 (PB Pg. 36-37) further submitted that assessee has been regular in filing its Tax Audit Reports for every year and it is not the case where AO defaults in furnishing the tax audit report frequently. The assessee also furnished' the ITR Acknowledgements and Tax Audit Reports for preceding previous years and also for subsequent years i.e. AY 2015- 16, AY 2016-17, AY 2018-19 & AY 2019-20 which are placed at PB Pg. 38-95 in support of his contention that he has been filing the Tax Audit report in time and this year the delay was because of ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 20.02.2023]. 7. The Ld. Counsel further submits that penalty should not be imposed, where there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act or where the breach flows from a bonafide belief. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa [83 ITR 26]. The Ld. Counsel placing reliance on the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of P. Senthil Kumar vs. PCIT [416 ITR 336] submits that there is a reasonable cause in not getting the accounts audited and furnished audit report before due date for filing of return and, therefore, no penalty is leviable u/s 271B of the Act. 8. On the other hand, Ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ide intention, the reasons were assigned. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the explanation offered by the assessee can be taken as a reasonable cause for his failure to file the audit report within time. We are also aware that the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act only on 29.3.2015 and on that date, the audit report was very much available with the Assessing Officer. 11. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Hindustan Steel Limited Vs. State of Orissa [reported in (1972) 83 ITR 26], considered the validity of levy of penalty under the provisions of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947. One of the questions, which was framed for consideration was as to whether imposition of penalty for failure to register as ....