RIKHAB CHAND HUF,COIMBATORE vs. DCIT, NON CORPORATE CIRLCE-4, COIMBATORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 318/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 June 2026AY 2018-194 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal due to a significant delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. No petition was filed for condonation of delay, and no one appeared on behalf of the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a HUF, failed to get its accounts audited and furnish the audit report within the due date as required under Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act. The audit report was filed belatedly, leading to a penalty under Section 271B. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271B is leviable for belated filing of the audit report. Whether the appeal filed before the Tribunal should be dismissed due to delay and non-appearance of the appellant.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 44AB,Section 271B,Section 274

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHENNAI BENCHES, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE INTURI RAMA RAO & HON’BLE SS VISWANETHRA RAVI

For Respondent: Ms. Anitha,Addl.CIT
Pronounced: 17.06.2026

आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the Assessee directed against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], Delhi dated 01.08.2025 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2018-19.

2.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is a HUF engaged in the

business of chemicals and solvents under the name and style of Mahaveer

Chemicals and Industries. The assessment against the Return of Income for the

Assessment Year 2018-19 was completed vide order dated 25.03.2021 passed

u/s.143(3) of the Act accepting returned income. During the course of

assessment proceedings, it is found that the turnover during the previous year

relevant to assessment year under consideration was Rs.50,06,81,239/-.

However, the appellant had failed to get the accounts audited and furnished the

prescribed Audit Report as required under the provisions of section 44AB of the

Income Tax Act, 1961 within the due date prescribed under the Act, however,

filed the Audit Report belatedly on 20.11.2018. Therefore, the Assessing

Officer had issued a show cause notice u/s.274 r.w.s 271B vide show cause

notice dated 11.08.2022. In response to show cause notice, the appellant

submitted that the prescribed Audit Report u/s.44AB of the Act had been

furnished on 20.11.2018 and therefore, no penalty can be levied. However, the Assessment Unit of the Department(hereinafter called ‘AO’) had proceeded with

levy of penalty u/s.271B of Rs.1,50,000/-.

3.

Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, the appellant preferred an appeal before ld.CIT(A), with a delay of 40 days. However, ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine on the grounds of delay without condoning delay.

4.

Being aggrieved by the order of ld.CIT(A), the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. The appeal was filed with a delay of 85 days before this Tribunal. When the appeal was called for hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the appellant despite due service of notice for hearing. Therefore, after hearing ld.Sr.DR, we proceeded to dispose of this appeal on merits.

5.

At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 85 days in presenting appeal

before this Tribunal. The appellant had not filed any petition seeking the

condonation of delay, therefore, it is presumed that the appellant has no

explanation to offer to explain the reasons for delay. Therefore, the appeal is

dismissed in limine on the ground of delay.

6.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 17th June, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (SS VISWANETHRA RAVI) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Chennai; �दनांक / Dated : 17th June, 2026 SGR, Sr.PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The CIT Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem. 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, “सी” ब�च, चे�नई / DR, ITAT Chennai. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5. GANGADHARA Digitally signed by GANGADHARA RAO SALEELA RAO SALEELA Date: 2026.06.25 17:09:27 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 44AB

All 2,486 judgments and leading authorities on Section 44AB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →