Jai Tripati Steels Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 259/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1059 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 09-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 03-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: BHAVESH SHAH

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA.NO.259/AHD/2016 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2013-2014 JAI TRIPATI STEELS PVT.LTD. 402, MAURYA ATIRA NR.SUBHASH PETROL PUMP BODAKDEV AHMEDABAD 380 015. PAN : AABCJ 5104 E VS ITO, WARD 4(2) AHMEDABAD. ! / (APPELLANT) '# ! / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI BHAVESH SHAH REVENUE BY : SHRI SANJAY KUMAR, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING : 09/06/2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 26/07/2016 $%/ O R D E R AGGRIEVED WITH THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY AMOUNTING TO RS.1,50,000/- UNDER SECTION 271B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IN T HE ASSTT.YEAR 2013-14, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 2. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LD.REPRESENTATIVES, I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. IT EMERGES OUT FROM THE RECORD T HAT TOTAL TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE WAS MORE THAN RS.40 LAKHS. IT WAS REQUIRE D TO BE GET ACCOUNTS AUDITED UNDER SECTION 44AB OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSE E WAS REQUIRED TO SUBMIT ITS AUDITED REPORT ALONG WITH RETURN OF INCOME. IT HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 28.9.2013 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.26,46,690 /-. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, AUDIT REPORT WAS TO BE UPLOADED ON THE SI TE OF THE DEPARTMENT ON OR ITA NO.259/AHD/2016 2 BEFORE 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2013. BUT THERE WAS VARIOUS GLITCHES I N THE FUNCTIONING OF THE SOFTWARE. THE AUDIT REPORTS COU LD NOT BE UPLOADED. THE TIME LIMIT FOR FILING OF THE RETURN AS WELL AS UPLO ADING OF AUDIT REPORT WAS EXTENDED UPTO 31 ST OCTOBER, 2013. THE ASSESSEE HAD TO VISIT BANGALOR E DUE TO SOME COMMERCIAL EXIGENCIES, BECAUSE THAT WOULD OTHE RWISE CLOSE BANKING FACILITY OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. SUCH VISIT WAS M ADE ON 30.9.2013. WHEN THE MAIN PERSON CAME BACK, THEN HE WAS INFORMED THA T RETURN WAS FILED. HE, THOUGHT THAT THE AUDIT REPORT MUST HAVE ALSO BEEN F ILED ALONG WITH RETURN, BECAUSE DUE DATE WAS EXTENDED TO 31.10.2013. THE A SSESSEE ALSO CONTENDED THAT IT HAS OBTAINED AUDIT REPORT WELL IN TIME. FO R BUTTRESSING HIS CONTENTION, THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED CD BEFORE THE LD.REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND ALSO PRODUCED SOFT COPY OF XML FILE DATED 28.9.2013. WI TH THE HELP OF THESE DOCUMENTS, IT WAS DEMONSTRATED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT IT HAS OBTAINED AUDIT REPORT WELL IN TIME, BUT SUCH REPORT COULD NOT BE F ILED. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT DUE TO BONA FIDE MISTAKE, REPORT COULD NOT BE FILED. THIS EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED BY BOTH TH E AUTHORITIES ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS AN EXPLANATION MERELY FOR THE SAKE OF EX PLANATION. THE LD.COMMSSIONER DID NOT FIND BONA FIDE IN THIS EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. ON DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THERE COULD NOT BE ANY MALA FIDE INTENTION AT THE END OF THE ASSESSEE NOT TO FILE AN AUDIT REPORT WHEN THE ACCOUNTS WERE GOT AUD ITED. THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS SINCE LONG. IT HAS BEEN GETTING ITS ACCOU NTS AUDITED IN THE PAST ALSO. IT IS WELL VERSED WITH ITS OBLIGATIONS AND PRODUCTI ON OF CD ALONG WITH SOFT- COPY OF AN XML FILE WOULD INDICATE THAT IT HAS MADE ITS EFFORTS FOR UPLOADING OF THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS. IN THE PAPER BOOK, THE AS SESSEE HAS FILED ALL SUCH DETAILS. IN MY OPINION, THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD WHICH WOULD PERSUADE THE ITA NO.259/AHD/2016 3 ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY TO DOUBT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, I ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETE THE PEN ALTY. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 26 TH JULY, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 26/07/2016