SH. BALBIR SINGH CHADHA,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, W-4(4), CHANDIGARH

defaults were inadvertent and beyond the control of the

assessee since the taxation matters of the assessee were

being looked after by tax consultants and tax auditors, who

due to heavy rush of return had failed to file ITR by the due

date alongwith tax audit report u/s 44AB of the Act and

since the assessee was away to New Zealand from 6.9.2010

to 16.3.2011, he could not follow up the same with his

3 ITA Nos.84 & 85/Chd/2019 A.Y. 2010-11

consultants and it was only thereafter when the notice u/s

148 of the Act was received by him on 5.11.2017 that the

said defaults were acted upon and rectified. The Ld.Counsel

for the assessee also pointed out that his return for the

impugned year had been subjected to scrutiny and the

returned income had been accepted as such without making

any addition. Copy of the assessment order passed for the

impugned year was filed before us. It was, therefore, stated

that even otherwise no prejudice was caused to the Revenue

on account of this default of the assessee.

CIT(A) pointing out that the busyness of the tax consultant

and the absence of the assessee from the country at that

point of time does not constitute reasonable cause for the

lapse/default, when the assessee could very well have

followed up with his consultant for complying with the

statutory deadlines.

a fit case for levy of penalty for delayed filing of tax audit

report and income tax return. Undoubtedly the Revenue

could not find any fault in the income returned by the

assessee for the impugned year, despite subjecting it to

scrutiny assessment. What emerges from the same is that

4 ITA Nos.84 & 85/Chd/2019 A.Y. 2010-11

the non filing of tax audit report and of the return of income by the specified due date was definitely not intentional with the purpose of not disclosing any income for taxation. The plea of the assessee therefore that it was an inadvertent default, on account of the tax consultant being busy with GST returns and the assessee not being able to adequately follow up with him since he was away in New Zealand, appears to be a reasonable cause.

In view of the same we hold that no penalty u/s 271B and 271F was leviable in the present case and direct deletion of both. 7. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court.

Sd/- Sd/- संजय गग� अ�नपूणा� गु�ता (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SANJAY GARG) �याय�क सद�य/Judicial Member लेखा सद�य/Accountant Member �दनांक /Dated: 26th September, 2019 *रती* आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��यथ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त/ CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य आ�धकरण, च�डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File

आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar