L.G. BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS,BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

These are appeals filed by the respective assessees directed against the orders dated 26/8/2014 of the CIT(A)-VI, Bangalore, for the impugned assessment years. to 1528/Bang/2014 M/s.L.G.Builders & Developers & another Page 2 of 4

Assessees in all these appeals assail levy of penalty under section 271B r.w.s.274 of the IT Act for failure to conduct audit specified under section 44AB of the Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) had levied penalty under section 271B finding that the turnover of these assessees for the impugned assessment years exceeded Rs.40 lakhs. Though the AO had issued notices to the assessee seeking reasons why penalty should not be levied, it seems, assessee had not responded to such notices. Assessees, however, filed appeals before the CIT(A). CIT(A) issued notice on 10/08/2012, 10/10/2012, 03/01/2014, 21/05/2014 and 23/6/2014 fixing various dates of hearing. However, assessees had, except for filing adjournment letters, never entered appearance. CIT(A) was of the opinion that the assessee was involved in dilatory tactics. He dismissed the appeals of the assessees, inter alia, noting that the assessee had not complied with the requirement of sec.44AB of the Act.

Now before us, AR strongly assailing the orders of the CIT(A) submitted that assessees had a reasonable cause since its auditors being very busy and could not enter appearance or give proper explanation before the lower authorities. As per the ld.AR, if the assessee are given one more opportunity before the lower authorities, they would be able to establish a reasonable cause for to 1528/Bang/2014 M/s.L.G.Builders & Developers & another Page 3 of 4 not getting its accounts audited as required under section 44AB of the act.

Per contra, DR submitted that number of opportunities were given by the AO and the CIT(A) and the assessees were not diligent in pursuing the remedies available to them. Hence, as per the ld.DR it would not be fair to give another chance.

We have perused the orders of the authorities below and heard the rival submissions. It is true that the assessees were given number of chances by the AO for explaining why penalty should not be imposed on them for failure to comply with sec.44AB. The CIT(A) had also given five opportunities to the assessee, when the matter came before him. However, we find that assessees had filed adjournment letters. The CIT(A) himself has at para.3 of his order summarized the contents of such adjournment letters. The reasons mentioned in these adjournment letters were different from one another and not identical. In our opinion, assessees were not acting mechanically while seeking adjournment. Ends of justice will be met if one more chance is given to the assessees to explain its position. We, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit it back to his file for consideration afresh in accordance with law. Ld.CIT(A), however, need give only one final opportunity to the to 1528/Bang/2014 M/s.L.G.Builders & Developers & another Page 4 of 4 assessees and the ld.CIT(A) can proceed in accordance with law, whether they enter appearance or not on the appointed day.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the years are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.