Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member and Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member
ITA No. 643/Coch/2023 (Assessment Year: 2016-17)
Role Agencies The Income Tax Officer 15/390A, Kumblam C.R. Building, I.S. Press Panangad S.O. vs. Road Ernakulam 682506 Kochi 682018 [PAN: AARFR6919E] (Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by: ------ None ------- 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. 2016-17 arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)]’s DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1050431829(1) dated 06.03.2023 in proceedings u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).
Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. We accordingly proceed exparte against the assessee.
It emerges during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have levied section 271B penalty of Rs.1,12,351/- @ 0.5% of his total turnover amounting to Rs.2,24,70,212/- on the ground that it failed to furnish it’s tax audit report within the prescribed “due” date u/sec.139(1) of the Act. The Revenue fails to
2 ITA No. 643/Coch/2023 Role Agencies rebut the clinching facts on record that the assessee had filed the same along with it’s return u/sec.139(1) on 16.03.2017 [for AY 2016-17] which followed sec.143(3) assessment getting framed on 29.12.2018. coupled with this, the assessee had also filed it’s detailed explanation(s) before the learned lower authorities throwing light on circumstances beyond it’s control. We conclude in these facts that the assessee’s explanation indeed forms a “reasonable cause” within the meaning of sec.273B of the Act. The impugned penalty is deleted therefore.
Delay of 164 days in filing the instant appeal is condoned in light of Collector, Land Acquisition vs., MST Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) having settled the law long back that all such technical aspects must make a way for the cause of substantial justice. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court 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