Sri Ashok Kumar Gupta, Hardoi V. I.T.O. -3(3), , Hardoi

ITA 712/LKW/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2486 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 06-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 273B

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.712/LKW/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2013-14 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.712/LKW/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2013-14 SHRI ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA, M/S SARAWATI TRADERS, NAVEEN MANDI ESTHAL, HARDOI. PAN:AJEPG 5658 D VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(3), HARDOI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R PER T. S. KAPOOR, A.M. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A), BAREILLY DATED 14/08/2017 PERTAININ G TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. 2. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS THE ACTION OF LEARNED CIT(A) BY WHICH HE HAS CONFIR MED THE PENALTY OF RS.1,50,000/- WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD IMPOS ED U/S 271B OF THE ACT. 3. AT THE OUTSET, LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT AS SESSEE IS PROPRIETOR OF THE FIRM M/S SARASWATI TRADERS AND GOT ITS ACCOU NTS AUDITED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1 961 AND THE RELEVANT APPELLANT BY SHRI SANJAY SAXENA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY SHRI C. K. SINGH, D.R. DATE OF HEARING 06/03/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 08 / 03 /201 9 I.T.A. NO.712/LKW/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2013-14 2 REPORT WAS OBTAINED ON 30/09/2013. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE TAX AUDIT REPORT WAS HAN DED OVER BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE ADVOCATE TO FILE THE RETURN OF INCOME. HE S UBMITTED THAT FROM THIS, THE TAX AUDIT REPORT WAS TO BE UPLOADED FROM THE SI TE OF THE DEPARTMENT BUT THE ADVOCATE FAILED TO DO SO AND FILED THE SAME ON 24/04/2014. DUE TO THIS FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE OLD COUNSEL, THE AS SESSEE CHANGED THE COUNSEL ALSO. ON ENQUIRY BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE OLD COUNS EL, HE INFORMED THAT THE CBDT HAD CHANGED THE FORM NO. 3CD SEVERAL TIMES AND ALSO EXTENDED THE DATE OF FILING THE SAME TO 31.10.2013 AND THAT INIT IALLY, THERE WAS A FAULTY SYSTEM OF UPLOADING THE TAX AUDIT REPORT AND THE SA ID UTILITY/SOFTWARE WAS NOT FUNCTIONING PROPERLY SO THE AUDIT REPORT COULD NOT BE UPLOADED. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE THAT THERE IS REASONABLE CAUSE IN NOT UPLOADING THE TAX AUDIT REP ORT IN TIME. THE ASSESSMENT HAD BEEN COMPLETED BY THE DEPARTMENT ON THE BASIS OF THIS TAX AUDIT REPORT WHICH WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE IN THE CAS E OF SMT. RAJ KUMARI BATRA VS. ITO, WARD 1, BEAWAR OF ITAT, JAIPUR BENCH IN ITANO. 837/JP/2016 DATED 14.12.2016 FOR A.Y. 2013-14. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT WAS PRAYED THAT THE PENALTY OF RS.1,50,000/- BE DELETED. 4. LEARNED D. R., ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE T HROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT IN THIS CASE THE O NLY TECHNICAL DEFAULT, WHICH WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, RELATES TO THE NON UPLOAD ING OF TAX AUDIT REPORT FROM THE SITE OF THE DEPARTMENT WITHIN THE PERMISSI BLE TIME. THE TAX AUDIT REPORT WAS HANDED OVER BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE ADVOC ATE TO FILE THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE IS VERY LOW EDUCATED PERSON A ND DOES NOT HAVE ANY I.T.A. NO.712/LKW/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2013-14 3 KNOWLEDGE IN COMPUTER AND E-FILING OF THE RETURN. OTHERWISE ALSO, THIS IS THE PROVISION WHICH HAS COME INTO FORCE SUBSEQUENTL Y AND CBDT HAD CHANGED THE FORM NO. 3CD SEVERAL TIMES AND ALSO EXT ENDED THE DATE OF FILING THE SAME TO 31/10/2013. THE ASSESSEE HAD TO DEPEND ON THE COUNSEL TO UPLOAD THE TAX AUDIT REPORT. THEREFORE, THE ASSESS EE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE IN NOT FILING THE AUDIT REPORT WIT HIN THE PERMISSIBLE TIME. IN OUR OPINION, THIS IS MERELY A TECHNICAL DEFAULT AND FOR WHICH UNTIL AND UNLESS IT IS PROVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS KNOWINGLY AVOIDE D TO UPLOAD THE TAX AUDIT REPORT, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE LIABLE FOR THE P ENALTY. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 273B WHICH CLEARLY STATE THAT IF THE ASSESS EE HAS BEEN PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE, NO PENALTY CAN BE IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND DELETE THE PENALTY AMOUNTING TO RS.1,50,000/- 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08/03/2019) SD/. SD/. ( A. D. JAIN ) ( T. S. KAPOOR ) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:08/03/2019 *SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW