Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR
Before: SHRI RAMESH C. SHARMA, AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1006 & 1007/JP/2018
jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Rajendra Jha (Addl. CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : None (Departmental A/D on record) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 25.04.2019. ?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 03/06/2019. vkns'k@ ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM : These two appeals by the revenue are directed against two separate orders of the ld. CIT (A), Alwar both dated 13.06.2018 arising from levy of penalty under section 271B of the I.T. Act. None has appeared on behalf of the assessee respondent despite the notice of hearing was duly served vide acknowledgement on record. Accordingly we propose to hear and dispose off these appeals ex parte. The revenue has raised common ground as under :-
“ On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the penalty u/s 271B of the IT Act holding that the assessee could not get his books of accounts audited due to serious sickness of his father ignoring the facts that the business of the assessee was running efficiently having substantial quantum of turnover/receipts.”
The ld. D/R has submitted that the assessee has violated the provisions of section 44AB of the IT Act as the books of account were not audited on or before the due date of filing of the return under section 139(1) of the Act. He has pointed out that there is no dispute that the accounts of the assessee were audited on 15.02.2015 whereas the due date of filing of return was 30th September, 2013.
Thus there is a clear violation of provisions of section 44AB of the Act which attracts the penal provisions under section 271B of the Act. He has supported the penalty order passed under section 271B and submitted that when the assessee’s was not affected due to illness of the father of the assessee then how it can be a reasonable cause for not getting the accounts audited by due date.
We have considered the submissions of the ld. D/R and carefully perused the relevant record. The due date of filing the return for the assessment year 2013-14 u/s 139(1) was 30th September, 2013 and for the assessment year 2014-15 was 30th September, 2014. However, the assessee filed the return of income for both these assessment years only on 20th February, 2015 and 23rd February, 2015 respectively. The accounts for both the years were audited on 15th February, 2015. Therefore, there is a delay for getting the accounts audited for both the years. However, the assessee explained the reasons for not filing the return of income as well as audit report within the due date for both the assessment years as the father of the assessee was suffering from heart and other diseases and also become paralytic since August, 2013. The assessee has also explained that after a long illness ultimately the father of the assessee died on 29th April, 2014. These reasons have been reproduced by the AO in the impugned order as under :-
“ 1. That father of assessee Shri Ram Swaroop Singh became paralytic and was also suffering from Heart and other diseases since August 2013 and ultimately he died on 29.04.2014, copy of death certificate of Shri Ram Swaroop Singh is being enclosed.
2. That the assessee remained Bharatpur, Jaipur and Delhi for the treatment of his father, thus he neither could get the accounts audited with in time prescribed under the Income Tax Act and nor he could submit the Income Tax Return within time prescribed.
3. That after the death of his father, the assessee became mentally disturbed and also became patient of Hypertension. The assessee, after recovery of his health got the accounts audited and submitted the Income T4ax Return for the years 2013-14 and 2014-15 in the month of Feb. 2015.
That in the circumstances as mentioned above he was prevented by sufficient causes to get the accounts audited and furnish the Income Tax Return within time prescribed under the Income Tax Act. It is, therefore, requested that the penalty proceedings initiated under the above section may kindly dropped.”
By considering these reasons for delay in getting the accounts audited and filing the return of income belatedly for these two assessment years, the ld. CIT (A) was of the view that the assessee has explained the reasonable cause for default which is covered under section 273B of the IT Act. The relevant finding of the ld. CIT (A) in para 4.4 is as under :-
“ 4.4. I have considered the above mentioned facts of the case. It is obvious that the account was not audited within time prescribed. However, the appellant has filed submission along with evidences for the default as his father was seriously sick during those days. I have considered the submission and in my considered view, here is a reasonable cause for the default and it is covered under section 273B of the Act. Accordingly, taking into account facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- imposed under section 271B of the Act is deleted and the appellant’s ground of appeal on the issue is allowed.”
4. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons explained by the assessee, we concur with the view of the ld. CIT (A) that the assessee has explained the reasonable cause for not getting its accounts audited within the prescribed time limit and, therefore, the case of the assessee is covered under section 273B of the IT Act. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT (A) in deleting the penalty.
In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed.
Order is pronounced in the open court on 03/06/2019.