SRI SAI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,MAHBUBNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MAHBUBNAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 336/HYD/2018Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 September 2020AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the matter required fresh consideration by the Assessing Officer. The appeals were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against penalty orders levied under Section 271B of the Income Tax Act for multiple assessment years. The assessee contended that the penalty proceedings were initiated beyond the period of limitation.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty proceedings under Section 271B were initiated within the prescribed limitation period. Whether there was a reasonable cause for not getting the books of accounts audited.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271B,Section 275,Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “B-SMC”, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY

Hearing: 03/09/2020Pronounced: 04/09/2020

ORDER All these appeals are filed by the assessee against the orders of the Ld. CIT(A)-4, Hyderabad in appeal Nos. 0296, 0293, 0295 & 0294/2015-16/ITO, W-1, Mahbnr./CIT(A)-4/Hyd/17- 18, dated 15/11/2017 passed U/s. 271B r.w.s 250(6) of the Act for the AYs 2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12. 2. The assessee has raised identical grounds in all its appeals which are extracted herein below for reference:-

1.

“1. The order of the Ld. CIT (A) is against the law, weight of evidence and probabilities of case. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the order U/s. 271B of the Act levying penalty of Rs. 26,700/- (AY 2007-08); Rs. 68,858/- (AY 2008-09); Rs. 1,00,000/- (AY 2010-11) and Rs. 1,00,000/- (AY 2011-12).

3.

The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the penalty proceedings U/s. 271B of the Act were not initiated during the course of assessment proceedings or at the time of passing an order U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 on 31/3/2013, therefore, the proceedings initiated on 28/11/2014, are bad in law.

4. The Ld CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the assessee is having sufficient and reasonable cause for not getting books of accounts audited, therefore, erred in not deleting the penalty.

5. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend and modify the above grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, if it is considered necessary.”

3. At the outset, the ld. AR submitted before us that the show cause notice for initiating penalty proceedings U/s. 271B of the Act was issued to the assessee on 15/7/2014 for the first time for all the relevant Assessment Years and orders were passed U/s. 271B on 29/5/2015 which is beyond the period of limitation stipulated U/s. 275 of the Act. It was therefore pleaded that the order passed U/s. 271B in the case of the assessee for all the relevant AYs are barred by limitation and therefore they are required to be quashed. Ld DR on the other hand requested time for verifying the assessment records of the assessee.

4.

After considering the arguments advanced by both sides, I am of the considered view that the matter is required to be looked into by the ld. AO and thereafter decide the matter afresh on merits by passing a speaking order on all the issues raised by the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice, I hereby remit back all the four appeals of the assessee to the file of the Ld. AO for de-novo consideration.

5.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Pronounced in the open Court on 04th September 2020.

More judgments on Section 271B

All 1,993 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →