ANNAMALAIKOTTAI PALANISAMY NANDHAKUMAR,ERODE vs. ITO, CHE-C-(65) (1), ERODE

2 - 2. The assessee was assessed u/s 143(3) on 04.12.2019 after disallowance of Rs.3 Lacs u/s 37(1). The assessee is dealer of Indian Oil Corporation and practicing as a Doctor. The assessee admitted income of Rs.23.63 Lacs. Since there was delay in furnishing Audit Report u/s 44AB, Ld. AO proposed impugned penalty u/s 271B. The due date for filing the report was 15.11.2017 whereas the report was filed with minor delay of 13 days on 28.11.2017. The assessee attributed the delay to the fact that this being demonetization year, the auditor could not complete the audit in time. The bankers delayed the issuance of statement with details of demonetized currency. Nevertheless, the assessee cooperated with the department in completion of assessment and also paid the taxes levied on completion of assessment. However, rejecting the same, Ld. AO levied impugned penalty.

During appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that in terms of Sec.273B, penalty would not be leviable if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for such failure. However, not convinced, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the impugned penalty against which the assessee is in further appeal before us.

Upon perusal of factual matrix as stated above, it could be seen that the assessee has cooperated during assessment proceedings and no other infraction has been shown against the assessee. There is minor delay of 13 days only. It is also discernible that the assessee has paid the due taxes after completion of assessment. The explanation that this being demonetization year, the bankers delayed in issuing statements is also a reasonable explanation. Therefore, it is not a fit case for imposition of penalty. We order so.