VIJAYSINH YASHWANTRAO GHATAGE, Kolhapur V. CIT (A) KOLHAPUR, Kolhapur

ITA 168/PUN/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 56399 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 08-08-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 28-01-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K AMBASTHA
• Assessee Lawyers: KIRTI JOSHI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 168/PN/2010 : A.Y. 2005-06 VIJAYSINH Y. GHATGE 2235 E WAD NAGALA PARK KOLHAPUR 416 003 PAN ABGPG 8930 J APPELLANT VS. I.T.O. WARD 2(1) KOLHAPUR RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SMT. KIRTI JOSHI RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K. AMBASTHA ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) KOLHAPUR DATED 19-11-2009 FOR A .Y. 2005-06 WHEREIN CONFIRMATION OF PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271B OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS. 92,802/- HAS BEEN OPPOS ED. 2. THE ASSESSEE FILED A RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YE AR UNDER CONSIDERATION ON 31-3-2006 DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 12,49,590/-. THE RETURN FILED ON 31-3-2006 WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT ON 4-8-2006. AS PE R PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AB OF THE ACT, SINCE THE GR OSS RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE EXCEEDED RS. 40.00 LAKHS T HE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO GET HIS ACCOUNTS AUDITED B EFORE THE SPECIFIED DALE 31-10-2005 AND FURNISH BY THAT D ATE A REPORT OF SUCH AUDIT IN PRESCRIBED FORM DULY SIGNED AND VERIFIED BY SUCH ACCOUNTANT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESS EE FAILED 2 ITA NO. 168/PN/2010 VIJAYSINH GHATGE A.Y. 2005-06 TO DO THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, PENALTY U/S 271B OF TH E ACT WAS IMPOSED WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). 3. THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US IS THAT HE W AS IGNORANT OF PROVISIONS OF LAW. 4. THIS GROUND CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED AT THIS STAGE IN VIEW OF CONSCIOUS DECISION TO TAKE A STAND BEFORE T HE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT THE ACCOUNTS WERE NOT AUDITE D BEFORE THE SPECIFIED DALE, BECAUSE OF ILLNESS OF HIS ACCOU NTANT. IN FACT, THIS STAND WAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED BY THE ASSES SEE AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME. HAVING DONE SO, HE CAN NOT TAKE AN ALTERNATE STAND BEFORE US. IN THIS CASE, THE AS SESSEE WAS WELL AWARE AND WELL GUIDED BY THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT FOR CONDUCTING HIS BUSINESS. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) NEEDS NO INTERFERENCE AT OUR HANDS. WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26 TH AUGUST 2011. S D/ - (G.S. PANNU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER S D/ - (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE DATED THE 26 TH AUGUST 2011 ANKAM COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A)- KOLHAPUR 4. THE CIT KOLHAPUR 5. THE D.R, ITAT PUNE BENCH, PUNE 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 3 ITA NO. 168/PN/2010 VIJAYSINH GHATGE A.Y. 2005-06 PUNE BENCHES, PUNE.