SURABHI SURENDRANATHAN,KOZHIKODE vs. THE ITO WARD 2 , KANNUR

PDF
ITA 423/COCH/2023Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 October 2024AY 2017-18Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member), Shri Amarjit Singh (Judicial Member)2 pages

No AI summary yet for this case.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN

Before: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S., Advocate
For Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 22.08.2024Pronounced: 23.10.2024

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member and Shri Amarjit Singh, Judicial Member

ITA No. 423/Coch/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18)

Surabhi Surendranathan The Income Tax Officer-2 Surabhilam, Naluthura Kannothumchal Pandakkal, Mahe vs. Kannur 670006 Kozhikode 673310 [PAN: FSVPS8520K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by: Shri Arun Raj S., Advocate Respondent by: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R.

Date of Hearing: 22.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 23.10.2024

O R D E R Per Bench This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2017-18 arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)]’s DIN & Order No. ITBA/ NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1051488413(1) dated 28.03.2024 in proceedings u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

2.

Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive ground that both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in levying section 271B penalty, we find that the assessee has filed her return on 28.03.2018 followed by submission of relevant tax audit report on 11.05.2018 finally culminating in section 143(3) regular

2 ITA No. 423/Coch/2023 Surabhi Surendranathan assessment framed on 29.10.2019. The assessee had admittedly attributed the impugned delay of 2 months in filing of relevant documents to communication gap and other miscellaneous reasons with the office of her auditor. Be that as it may, the assessee had duly filed her audit report well before the due date for filing the return. That being the case the assessee’s explanation has reasonable cause within the meaning of Section 273B of the Act; therefore, the impugned penalty is deleted.

3.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed.

Order pronounced on 23rd October, 2024 under Rule 34 of The Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. Sd/- Sd/- (Amarjit Singh) (Satbeer Singh Godara) Accountant Member Judicial Member

Cochin, Dated: 23rd October, 2024 n.p. Copy to:

1.

The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT concerned 4. The Sr. DR, ITAT, Cochin 5. Guard File By Order

Assistant Registrar ITAT, Cochin

SURABHI SURENDRANATHAN,KOZHIKODE vs THE ITO WARD 2 , KANNUR | BharatTax