Shri Narendra L. Jain, Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(5), Now Ward- 2(2)(3), Ahmedabad

ITA 2098/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8254 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 15-07-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 273B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH (BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA. NO: 2098/AHD/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) SHRI NARENDRA L. JAIN 62/1, RANNA PARK SOCIETY, B/H. SOMESHWAR SOCIETY, RANIP, AHMEDABAD V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2 (2)(3), AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AFWPJ8107L APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUNIL TALATI, AR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MUDIT NAGPAL, SR. D.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 01 -11-201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14 -11-2017 PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS PREFERRED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-10, AHMEDABAD DATED 01.06.2015 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2011- 12. ITA NO. 2098 /AHD/2015 . A.Y. 2011-1 2 2 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS. 1.50 LAKHS U/S. 271B OF THE ACT. 3. A PERUSAL OF THE PENALTY ORDER SHOWS THAT THE A.O. HAS LEVIED THE PENALTY U/S. 271B OF THE ACT BECAUSE HE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AB OF THE ACT BY NOT GE TTING HIS ACCOUNTS AUDITED ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE PRESCRIBED UNDER THE REL EVANT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. 4. WHEN THE MATTER WAS AGITATED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY CONTENDED THAT HE WAS PREVENTED BY REASONABLE AND S UFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT GETTING THE ACCOUNTS AUDITED ON OR BEFORE THE DUE D ATE. THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FIND ANY FAVOUR WITH THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHO CONFIRMED THE PENALTY ORDER. 5. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERA TED WHAT HAS BEEN STATED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 6. THE LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT( A). 7. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE ORD ERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAVE ALSO VERY CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE F ACTUAL MATRIX WHICH PREVENTED THE ASSESSEE BY GETTING THE ACCOUNTS AUDI TED ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE. 8. FACTS SHOW THAT THE BUSINESS AADINATH BULK CARRIERS WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH A REGISTERED SALE DEED AS A GOING CONCERN VIDE A SALE AGREEMENT ON WHICH STAMP DUTY WAS PAID ON 24.09.2010. WE FIND THAT THE BOOKS OF THE ITA NO. 2098 /AHD/2015 . A.Y. 2011-1 2 3 EARLIER PROPRIETOR WERE IN POSSESSION OF THE TRANSF EROR TILL THE YEAR 2012 WHICH WERE AUDITED MUCH AFTER THE EXPIRY OF TIME LIMIT PR ESCRIBED FOR GETTING THE ACCOUNTS AUDITED U/S. 44AB OF THE ACT. THE COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT WAS HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSEE THEREAFTER. 9. AFTER RECEIVING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FROM THE ERST WHILE PROPRIETOR, THE ASSESSEE COULD COMPLETE THE BOOKS FROM THE DATE WHE N HE BECAME THE PROPRIETOR AND THEN COULD GET THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AUDITED. 10. HOWEVER, DURING THIS PERIOD, THE DUE DATE FOR GETTI NG THE BOOKS AUDITED EXPIRED. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, ON THE GIVEN FA CTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT GET THE BOOKS AUDITED ON OR BEFORE THE DU E DATE AS HE WAS NOT IN POSSESSION OF THE BOOKS AND THEREFORE WAS PREVENTED BY REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT CAUSE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2 73B OF THE ACT. 11. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION, THAT ON THE GIVEN SET OF FACTS, THIS IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 273B OF THE ACT. WE, SET ASIDE THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE A.O. TO DELETE THE PE NALTY. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 14- 11- 20 17 SD/- SD/- (S. S. GODARA) (N. K. BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER TRUE COPY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 14/11/2017 RAJESH