Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
माननीय +ी वी. दुगा1 राव, �ाियक सद2 एवं माननीय +ी मनोज कुमार अ7वाल ,लेखा सद2 के सम9। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ (िनधा1रणवष1 / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Deepak T. Dhanwani, ITO बनाम/ 122A/7A, Sardar Patel Road, Non-Corporate Ward-8(1) Vs. Adyar, Chennai-600 020. Chennai. �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.AFMPD-4250-J (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : ("#थ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri M. Karunakaran (Advocate)- Ld AR "#थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 31-05-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 01-06-2023 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aggrieved by confirmation of penalty u/s 271B for Rs.1,11,343/- for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The impugned order has been passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] on 22-11-2022 in the matter of impugned penalty levied by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 271B of the Act vide order dated 15-12-2021. In the penalty order, the penalty has been levied on the finding that the assessee furnished Tax Audit Report u/s 44AB on 30-03-2019 which is after specified due date. During appellate proceedings, the assessee attributed the delay to the fact that the accountant who was handling the accounts suddenly left the job which led to the delay. However, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty against which the assessee is in further appeal before us.
The registry has noted a delay of 93 days in the appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by Ld. AR on the strength of an affidavit filed by the assessee wherein it has been stated that delay took place due to adverse medical conditions being faced by assessee’s wife. Though Ld. Sr. DR opposed condonation of delay, however, the bench formed an opinion that the delay was to be condoned. Accordingly, we proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits.
From the record, it emerges that the assessee has furnished the Tax Audit Report along with return of income filed u/s 139(4). In such a case, the decision of coordinate bench of this Tribunal in Shri Ramunaicker Raja vs. ACIT (ITA No. 603/Chny/2022 dated 15-02- 2023) would support the case of the assessee wherein, on similar facts, it was held that it was not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271B. Respectfully following the same, we delete the impugned penalty.
The appeal stand allowed. Order pronounced on 01st June, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (V. DURGA RAO) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) �ाियक सद2/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखासद2 / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे6ईChennai; िदनांकDated : 01-06-2023 DS आदेशकीXितिलिपअ7ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant2. ��यथ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�त/CIT4. �वभागीय��त�न�ध/DR 5. गाड�फाईल/GF