MOHD ZAHEERUDDIN ZEESHAN AYUB ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(2), HYDERABAD

Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive grievance that both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in imposing Section 271B penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- we note that the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion to this effect reads as under:

Learned Counsel vehemently contended during the course of hearing that this assessee is drawing salary income on regular basis and it was only in the impugned assessment year that he had carried out corresponding transactions requiring audit report u/s.44AB of the Act. He therefore pleaded assessee’s ignorance only as a reasonable cause u/s.273 for deleting the impugned penalty.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to assessee’s vehement contentions and find no merit therein. It is an admitted fact that the assessee’s case is very well covered u/s.44AB of the Act as his turnover has indeed exceeded the basic threshold limit of Rs.40 lakhs in the relevant previous year. There is further no dispute that neither the assessee had got prepared his audit report nor the same had been furnished well within time to the assessing authority; as the case may be. We therefore hold that mere ignorance of law pleaded herein at the assessee’s behest hardly deserves to be treated as a reasonable cause for disturbing the impugned penalty as upheld in the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion. The same stands confirmed therefore.

This assessee’s appeal is dismissed in above terms.