2024 (8) TMI 1432

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Act. Since the petitioner failed to submit the audit report in time, proceedings were initiated and such proceedings culminated in the order imposing penalty under Section 271 B of the Income-tax Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was diagnosed with left sided radiculitis and advised complete bed rest between August, 2018 and October, 2018. Consequently, the petitioner was unable to co-ordinate with his auditor so as to finalize and submit the audit report. Eventually, such audit report was submitted along with the return of income on 21.04.2022. 4. By referring to paragraph 5 of the impugned order, learned counsel submitted that the conclusion that the audit report was submitted only after issua....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....titioner and that this Court should not exercise discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. 6. The admitted position is that the petitioner was required to submit a tax audit report as per Section 44 AB of the Income-tax Act within the time limit specified. Such report was admittedly submitted only on 21.04.2022, which is much beyond the prescribed time limit. Section 271B enables the Assessing Officer to impose a penalty equal to one half percent of the total sale, turnover or cost receipts, as the case may be, or the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-, whichever is less. Under Section 273B, no penalty shall be imposable by the Assessing Officer if the failure to comply with the provisions referred to therein was for reasonable cause. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....v) Moreover, it is pertinent to mention here that the assessee filed his return of income after a gap of about four years only when he received notice under section 148 of I.T. Act, 1961. If the case of the assessee was not selected for reassessment proceedings under section 148 of I.T. Act, 1961, the assessee would not have admitted business income to the tune of Rs. 18,18,870/- and same would have escaped from taxation. The assessee has failed to mention as to why he filed his return of income after a gap of four years only and reasons which prevented him to file his return of income before the issuance of notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act. (v) Further, the assessee has not filed any appeal against the initiation of penalty proceedi....