GOPINATH PALANI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW08(2), CHENNAI
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ड ’ यायपीठ, चेनई।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI
ी मनु कुमार िग र, ाियक सद एवं
ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद के सम
BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.3023/Chny/2025
िनधारण वष/Assessment Year: 2017-18
Gopinath Palani,
236/900, Trunk Road,
Poonamallee,
Chennai – 600 056. v.
Income Tax Officer,
Non Corporate Ward-8(2),
Chennai.
[PAN: APJPG 8077P]
(अपीलाथ /Appellant)
( यथ /Respondent)
अपीलाथ क ओर से/ Appellant by :
Mr. N.V.Krishnan, Advocate
यथ क ओर से /Respondent by :
Mr. ARV Sreenivasan,CIT
सुनवाईक तार ख/Date of Hearing
:
16.12.2025
घोषणाक तार ख /Date of Pronouncement
:
22.12.2025
आदेश / O R D E R
PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld.
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC) Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 22.08.2025
for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee instituted appeal before the ld.CIT(A) against the penalty imposed u/s271B of the Act. On further appeal to ld.CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) furnish the audit report w the Act. He further holds of the Act.
Aggrieved, assessee is in 3. Before us, the ld.
furnishing of report wa hospitalizes and he had t the ld.CIT(A) and pleaded
We have heard interaction between Sec highlights an important b Although Section 44AB r audit, the penalty presc imposed automatically. S from penalties where th cause” for failing to comp
In the case of La Deputy Commissioner (Madras)/[2013] 216 T (Madras)[15-06-2011], th the tax audit report cou ITA N 2
dismissed the appeal holding that the within time prescribed time limit und s that the has not shown any reasona appeal before this Tribunal.
Counsel for assessee submitted that s on account of assesssee’s very to take care of them. The ld.DR relied d for the dismissal of the appeal.
the rival submissions and perused ctions 273B and 44AB of the Incom balance in tax law between strict com requires certain taxpayers to undergo cribed under Section 271B for non-
Section 273B acts as a safeguard b e assessee can establish that there ply with the audit obligation.
akshmi Card Clothing Manufacturing of Income-tax
[2013]
35
ta
Taxman 112 (Madras) (Mag.)/[201
he Juri ictional High Court ruled tha uld be excused due to the illness of No.3022/Chny/2025
Gopinath Palani e assessee failed to der section 44AB of ble cause u/s 273B reason for delayed close relative was d upon the order of the record. The me Tax Act, 1961
pliance and equity.
o a mandatory tax
-compliance is not by permitting relief was a “reasonable g Co. (P.) Ltd. vs.
axmann.com
235
3] 353 ITR 544
at a delay in filing f the auditor. This highlighted that the reas whose health issues direc
Hence, respectfully are of the view that the r filing the audit report b Report i.e; 07.11.2017. u/s.271B of the Act.
In the result, appea Order pronounce (एस. आर. रघुनाथा (S.R.RAGHUNATH लेखा सद)य/ACCOUNTANT
चेनई/Chennai,
*दनांक/Dated: 22nd Decemb
EDN, Sr. PS
आदेश क ितिल+प अ,े+षत/Cop
1. अपीलाथ/Appellant
2. थ/Respondent
3. आयकरआयु/CIT, Chenna
4. िवभागीयितिनिध/DR
5. गाडफाईल/GF
ITA N
3
sonable cause can extend to key prof ctly impact the compliance timeline.
y following the Juri ictional High Co reason given by the assessee is a suff before the extended due date for fi
Therefore, we delete the penalty im al of the assessee is allowed.
ed on 22nd day of December, 2025 a )
HA)
T MEMBER
S
(मनु कु
(MANU KU
याियक सद)य/JU er, 2025. py to:
ai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore.
No.3022/Chny/2025
Gopinath Palani fessional personnel ourt judgment, we ficient cause for not ling the Tax Audit mposed by the AO at Chennai. कमार िग र)
UMAR GIRI)
UDICIAL MEMBER