Muthurajan Padmavathi, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 2102/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8144 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 12-07-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Assessee Lawyers: A S SRIRAMAN
• Section: 273B; 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , C B ENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . , % BEFORE SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.2102/MDS/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14) MRS. MUTHURAJAN PADMAVATHI 12, KAMARAJ PARK STREET, ROYAPURAM, CHENNAI-13. VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NCW -5(4), CHENNAI-6. PAN:AALPP1234Q ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR. A.S.SRIRAMAN, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : MR. A.V.SREEKANTH, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 9 TH JANUARY, 2017 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10 TH JANUARY, 2017 / O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM:- THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED BY T HE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS)- 5, CHENNAI DATED 11.05.2016 IN ITA NO.131/CIT(A)-5/ 14-15 PASSED UNDER SECTION 271B R.W.S. 250(6) OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS IN HER APPEAL, HOWEVER THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE IS AS FOLLOWS :- THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 271B OF THE ACT IN REGARD TO BELATED 2 ITA NO.2102 /MDS/2016 SUBMISSION OF TAX AUDIT REPORT UNDER SECTION 44AB OF THE ACT. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING AND PROCESSING OF PULSES IN THE NAME & STYLE M/S. ADHEE SHREE AGR O FOODS, FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 ON 12.10.2013 ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.8,09,600 /-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICE UNDER SEC TION 143(2) WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 02.09.2014. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLET ED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 29.02 .2016 WHEREIN HE MADE CERTAIN DISALLOWANCES AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED SEPARATELY. FURTHER, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ORDER DATED 19.02.2015 LEVIE D MINIMUM PENALTY OF RS.1,50,000/- UNDER SECTION 271B OF THE ACT FOR BELATED FILING OF AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO.3 CB UNDER SECTION 44AB OF THE ACT REJECTING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AUDIT REPORT COULD NOT BE FILED A S THE FORMS COULD NOT BE UPLOADED EVEN AFTER ATTEMPTING TO FILE THE SAME 3 ITA NO.2102 /MDS/2016 MORE THAN 12 TIMES AND FINALLY THE AUDIT REPORT COU LD BE FILED ONLY ON 13.01.2015. 4. ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTIO N 271B OF THE ACT BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER BY AGREEIN G WITH HIS VIEW. 5. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ARGUED BY STATING THAT THE ACCOUNTS WERE AUDITED UN DER SECTION 44AB OF THE ACT ON 30.09.2013 ITSELF AND TH EREAFTER THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 12.10.2013. SINCE THE E- FILING OF THE AUDIT REPORT COULD NOT BE COMPLIED DU E TO TECHNICAL ERRORS, IT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY FILED ON 13.0 1.2015. IT WAS THEREFORE PLEADED THAT THE PENALTY LEVIED BY TH E LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) MAY BE DELETED. 4 ITA NO.2102 /MDS/2016 6. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE O THER HAND VEHEMENTLY ARGUED IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULL Y PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IT APPEARS THAT THERE IS NO MUCH MERIT IN THE CONTENTI ON OF THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. AS STATED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN HIS ORDER, THE CDBT VIDE CIRCULAR NO.F.225/117/2013/ITA.II DATED 26.09.2013 HAD ALLOWED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE TAX REPORT MANUALLY WITH THE JURISDICTIONAL OFFICER WITHIN THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN AND THEREAFTER TO FILE THE SAME EL ECTRONICALLY ON OR BEFORE 31.10.2013. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAI LED TO DO SO AND ONLY E-FILED THE AUDIT REPORT ON 13.01.2015 I.E., AFTER THE ISSUE OF NOTICE OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271B O F THE ACT. HOWEVER, FROM FURTHER PERUSING THE MATTER, IT APPEA RS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTRUSTED THE COMPLIANCE WITH HIS AUTH ORIZED REPRESENTATIVES AND THEY HAVE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS. IN THIS SITUATION, IT WOULD BE HARSH TO LEVY PENALTY ON THE ASSESSEE WHO APPEARS TO BE A SM ALL TIME 5 ITA NO.2102 /MDS/2016 TRADER. THEREFORE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE INVOKI NG OUR POWERS UNDER SECTION 273B OF THE ACT WE HEREBY DIRECT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDE R SECTION 271B OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 10 TH JANUARY, 2017 SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) ( . ) (N.R.S.GANESAN) ( A.M OHAN ALANKAMONY ) # % / JUDICIAL MEMBER % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # /CHENNAI, ( /DATE:10.01. 2017 SOMU *+ ,+ /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. - () /CIT(A) 4. - /CIT 5. + 1 /DR 6. /GF