ATTINKARA ELECTRONICS,CHENGANNUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), DELHI
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. 564/Coch/2024 (Assessment Year: 2015-16)
Attinkara Electronics The Income Tax Officer 1 Attinkara Building Ward - 1 & TPS, Thiruvalla vs. M.C. Road, Chengannur 689121 [PAN: AAIFA1283D] (Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by: Shri Anumon Antony, CA Respondent by: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R.
Date of Hearing: 16.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 23.10.2024
O R D E R Per Bench This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2015-16 arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)]’s DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1064799013(1) dated 10.05.2024 in proceedings u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
The assessee’s sole substantive ground raised in the instant appeal challenges both the learned lower authorities’ action imposing section 271B penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- on account of the fact that it had failed to file the relevant tax audit report within the due date of filing of return u/s. 139(1) of the Act.
2 ITA No. 564/Coch/2024 Attinkara Electronics 3. Learned counsel first of all submits that this is not a case of non filing of assessee’s tax audit report altogether but that of belated filing only which stood complied very well before the Assessing Officer’s section 143(3) regular assessment. He next invites our attention to both learned lower authorities’ respective findings that it had also filed the medical record of its authorised representative which has been wrongly rejected as not forming a “reasonable cause” u/sec.273 of the Act.
Faced with this situation, learned Sr. D.R. could hardly dispute that this tribunal has already accepted assessee’s very case in earlier assessment years even going by the penalty order. We thus adopt judicial consistency to accept assessee’s sole substantive ground for the purpose of deleting section 271B penalty imposed by the lower authorities. Ordered accordingly.
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
Assistant Registrar ITAT, Cochin
