CIT v. Punjab State Leather Development Corporation Ltd.

171 CTR 451Reported decision#23191 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 133A Section 139(1)Section 271B Section 273B Section 44AB

Judgments citing CIT v. Punjab State Leather Development Corporation Ltd.

DR. MURUGESH SHANTVEERYA HIREMATH,PUNE vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(5), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1558/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1558/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Dr. Murugesh Shantveerya Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-1(5), Hiremath, Pune. 1126/B, Model Colony Road, Shivajinagar, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aadph0605H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri M. R. Bhagwat Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.01.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.06.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-11, Pune [‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) The Learned Cita Nfac Erred In Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271B Of The Income Tax Act Even Though The Tax Payer Had A Reasonable Cause For Not Getting His Accounts Audited For The Relevant Previous Year. 2) The Penalty Of Rs. 1,50,000/- Imposed Under Section 271B Be Cancelled. 3) Such Other Orders Be Passed As Deemed Fit & Proper.

For Appellant: Shri M. R. BhagwatFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 271BSection 44A

…ich constitutes reasonable cause. This plea was raised by the assessee even before the AO and AO has not doubted such contention of the assessee. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Punjab State Leather Development Corporation Ltd. (171 CTR 451) has held that delay in completion of statutory audit was reasonable cause for non- compliance with section 44AB and it was held that the Tribunal was right in cancelling penalty levied under section 271B. 8 4. In view of our discussion, we are of the opinion that CIT(A) was not right in upholding the levy of penalty under section 271B. Penalty…

SHARADCHANDRA DATTATRAY MULIK,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1(3), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 619/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.619/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sharadchandra Dattatray Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Mulik, Kolhapur. Dattaashila Agencies, Gargoti Road, At Post Uttur, Tal. Ajra, Kolhapur- 416220. Pan : Aghpm1855G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.12.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Assessing Officer Erred In Levying The Penalty U/S 271B A Sum Of Rs.1,50,000 Without Appreciating The Reasonable Circumstances Under Which Appellant Was Not Able To Get His Account Audited, As The Appointed Ca Has Discontinued The Audit Without An Intimation & Not Issued The Tax Audit Report, Under Such Circumstances Your Appellant Prays For Deletion Of Penalty.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 119Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144(1)(b)Section 271BSection 44A

…ich constitutes reasonable cause. This plea was raised by the assessee even before the AO and AO has not doubted such contention of the assessee. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Punjab State Leather Development Corporation Ltd. (171 CTR 451) has held that delay in completion of statutory audit was reasonable cause for non- compliance with section 44AB and it was held that the Tribunal was right in cancelling penalty levied under section 271B. 4. In view of our discussion, we are of the opinion that CIT(A) was not right in upholding the levy of penalty under section 271B. Penalty is…

PRABHA ENGINEERING P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6929/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Rajesh Kumarita No. : 6929/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) "भा एंजीनीयस" "ाइवेट "ल"मटेड Vs Dcit–Cir.8 (2), Aayakar Bhavan, Prabha Engineers P Ltd, Mumbai -400 020 Plot No.38, Midc Central Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai -400 093 Pan:Aaacp 7472 Q ""यथ" (Respondent) अपीलाथ" (Appellant) "ी भूप" शाह Appellant By Shri Bhupendra Shah "ी आर के साहू Respondent By Shri R K Sahu

Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

…ich constitutes reasonable cause. This plea was raised by the assessee even before the AO and AO has not doubted such contention of the assessee. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Punjab State Leather Development Corporation Ltd. (171 CTR 451) has held that delay in completion of statutory audit was reasonable cause for non-compliance with section 44AB and it was held that the Tribunal was right in cancelling penalty levied under section 271B. I find that the appellant case is distinguishable on facts and the appellant was not prevented by sufficient cause to file the audit report. Th…