Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A”
Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE
ORDER
PER DR.DIPAK P.RIPOTE, AM:
This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)-2, Nashik’s, order dated 21.11.2019for the Assessment Year 2011-12, involving proceedings under section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. I HAVE FILED INCOME TAX RETURN WITH TAX AUDIT REPORT AND IT IS SUBMITTED TO INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(4) NASHIK AT SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT. BUT I DO NOT KNOW WHY HE INITIATED PENALTY. WHEN IN CASES THERE IS FORM A.Y.2011-12 Nikhilchandra Namdeorao Tawade Vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Nashik (A)
3CB AND 3CD AVAILABLE THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY PENALTY.”
Brief facts of the case are that Penalty u/s 271B has been levied by the Assessing Officer for not filling Audit Report u/s 44AB of the Act. As per the CIT(A)’s order the audit report was received by the Assessee on 19.9.2011 and statutory date to file the audit report for the year was 31.10.2010. The AO has mentioned that the Assessee failed to file any reply to the show cause notice issued to him before levying penalty. Aggrieved by the order of the AO the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A) , the assessee claimed that there was delay in filling the audit report because of non- availability of “DSC” and paucity of funds. However, the ld.CIT(A) confirmed the penalty.
No one appeared on behalf of assessee before this Tribunal. No written submission has been filed by the appellant assessee. On perusal of the ld.CIT(A)’s order it is observed that the assessee claimed that he could not file the audit report in time because of non- availability of DSC and paucity of funds. However, the assessee has not filed any evidence to substantiate his claim that he had received DCS after 30.10.2010. The Assessee had not submitted any evidence to substantiate his claim that there was paucity of funds. The Assessee failed to explain how paucity of funds has resulted in Delay A.Y.2011-12 Nikhilchandra Namdeorao Tawade Vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Nashik (A) in filling Audit report. In the absence of any bonafide explanation supported by evidence, it is not possible to accept the reasons submitted by the assessee. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of K. Ravindranathan Nair 319 ITR 108 (Kerala) held as under: Quote “ On going through the Tribunal's order we find that the appellant did not adduce any evidence to justify the delay in filing the audit report as required under section 44AB of the Act and if any acceptable explanation was filed, the appellant could have avoided penalty. In the absence of any evidence adduced by the appellant at least before the Tribunal, we do not find any ground to interfere with the minimum penalty imposed under section 271B for admitted delay of filing audit report. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal.” Unquote.
Therefore, we are of the opinion that there was no bonafide reasons for delay, hence, the Penalty order is upheld, accordingly the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed.
In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed.