JAYAPRAKASH (HUF),NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, WARD-2,, NAMAKKAL

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 2023-24.

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. We note that the assessee filed the same reply as was filed for the delay in filing the audit report for the assessment year 2021-22. 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 ₹.102,27,45,721/- 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.