JAYAPRAKASH (HUF),NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, WARD-2,, NAMAKKAL
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to comply with the statutory provisions regarding audit report submission. The order of the CIT(A) upholding the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer was found to be justified.
What were the facts?
The assessee failed to appear for the hearing, and the appeal was decided ex-parte. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271B for failure to get accounts audited and furnish the audit report by the due date under Section 44AB.
What were the issues?
Whether the penalty under Section 271B for non-submission of the audit report under Section 44AB is justified, especially when the assessee remained ex-parte and failed to provide reasons for non-compliance.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 271B,Section 44AB,Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay
Year: 2021-22 Jayaprakash (HUF), Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 98/1A2, 118/4B1, Mataparpudoor Ward 2, Road, Kadhapalli PO, Namakkal Tk, Namakkal. Namakkal 637 003. [PAN:AAIHJ6329M] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : None ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 17.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 23.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R
PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 13.05.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the assessment year 2021-22.
When the appeal was taken up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor filed any petition seeking adjournment. Moreover, on perusal of the records, we note that the assessee has also not filed Vakkalath/power of Attorney authorising any Advocate/ C.A to represent the case. Thus, the assessee called absent and set exparte. We proceed to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the ld. DR and basing on the material available on record.
After hearing the ld. DR, we find that the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] and issued notice on 29.08.2024. In response to the notice, the assessee filed its reply dated 11.09.2024 and the same is reproduced at pages 4 and 5 of the penalty order. We find the reasons stated by the assessee in respect of the delay in filing the audit report for the year under consideration is first year; the Accountant of the assessee was suffering from Corona and due to huge tax liability. The Assessing Officer did not accept the said submissions and held that the assessee is required to get its accounts audited as total sales as per assessment order is ₹.46,92,09,110/- and thereby, for non-getting the accounts audited and non-furnishing of said audit report within the specified due date under section 44AB of the Act, levied penalty of ₹.1,50,000/- under section 271B of the Act. We find that the ld. CIT(A) discussed the said issue in detail and held the view of the Assessing Officer is correct in imposing penalty under section 271B of the Act for non-auditing the accounts and non-furnishing the same within the specified due date before the Assessing officer. Since the assessee failed to comply with the statutory provision, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and it is justified. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 23rd September, 2025 at Chennai.
More judgments on Section 271B
- Devayatbhai Kalotara, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, RajkotITA 679/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Waghire College Saswad, Pune vs ITO, Ward 14(5), PuneITA 2867/PUN/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Waghire College Saswad, Pune vs ITO, Ward 14(5), PuneITA 2866/PUN/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Waghire College Saswad, Pune vs ITO, Ward 14(5), PuneITA 2865/PUN/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Waghire College Saswad, Pune vs ITO, Ward 14(5), PuneITA 2864/PUN/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026