M/s Surabhi Super Stockist, Aluva V. ITO, Thodupuzha

ITA 26/COCH/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 58209 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 04-01-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 15-01-2010
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S VIJAYAPRABHA
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAVEEN C P CA V
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JM AND B.R.BASKARA N, AM I.T.A NO. 26/COCH/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07 M/S. SURABHI SUPER STOCKIST, 193A, ROCKFORT, ROCK WELL ROAD, PALLILAMKARA, HMT COLONY P.O., KALAMASSERY, COCHIN-683 503. [PAN: ABDFS 9496A] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, THODUPUZHA. (ASSESSEE-APPELLANT) (REVENUE- RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI PRAVEEN C.P., CA VREVENUE BY MS. S. VIJAYAPRABHA, JR. DR DATE OF HEARING 04/01/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 6 /01/2012 O R D E R PER B.R.BASKARAN, AM IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE IS CHALLENGING THE D ECISION OF THE LD. CIT(A)-II, KOCHI IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF ` 1 LAKH LEVIED U/S. 271B OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO FILE AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 3CB AND 3CD FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSI DERATION BY 31-10-2006. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE SAME ALONG WITH THE RETURN O F INCOME ONLY ON 20-02-2005 AND THUS, THERE WAS A DELAY OF ABOUT 4 MONTHS. HENCE THE ASS ESSING OFFICER INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271B OF THE ACT. SINCE THE EXPLAN ATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS I.T.A. NO. 26/COCH/2010 2 NOT CONVINCING TO HIM, THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED A PENALTY OF ` 1 LAKH. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE SAME AND HENCE THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBM ITTED THAT THE MAIN PARTNER OF THE FIRM WAS ADVISED BED REST FOR ABOUT 4 MONTHS DUE TO PROLAPSED DISC AND HENCE HE COULD NOT GET THE ACCOUNTS AUDITED WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT. IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, IT IS ALSO MENTIONED THAT THE ACCOUNTANT WHO HAD MA NAGED THE ACCOUNT WORKS WENT ABROAD DURING THAT PERIOD. WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD SUBMITTED AN EXPLANATION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEREIN IT WAS MENTION ED THAT THE MAIN PARTNER WAS ADMITTED IN THE HOSPITAL FROM OCTOBER, 2006 TO FEBR UARY, 2007, WHEREAS IN THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE SUBMITTED BEFORE US, IT WAS MENTIONED T HAT THE ASSESSEES PARTNER WAS ADVISED TO TAKE BED REST. THUS, THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASS ESSEE IS CONTRARY TO THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE, WHICH WAS GIVEN ON THE LETTER HEAD OF A DOCTOR. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT FURNISHED ANY PROOF TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CONTENT ION THAT THE ACCOUNTANT HAD GONE ABROAD DURING THAT PERIOD. HENCE, IN OUR VIEW, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR HIS FAILURE TO GET HIS A CCOUNTS AUDITED WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY IN FIRMITY IN THE DECISION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ACCORDINGLY ON 6TH JANUARY, 2012. SD/- SD/- (N.R.S.GANESAN) (B.R.BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: ERNAKULAM DATED: 6TH JANUARY, 2012 GJ COPY TO: 1. M/S. SURABHI SUPER STOCKIST, VI/193A, ROCKFORT, ROCK WELL ROAD, PALLILAMKARA, HMT COLONY P.O., KALAMASSERY, COCHIN-683 503. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, THODUPUZHA. I.T.A. NO. 26/COCH/2010 3 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-II, KOC HI. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KOCHI. 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN. 6. GUARD FILE .