JAYAPRAKASH (HUF),NAMAKKAL V. ITO, WARD-2, NAMAKKAL

ITA 1936/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Jayaprakash (HUF) against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which confirmed a penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer for non-compliance with the audit requirements under the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2021-22. The assessee did not appear at the hearing nor was represented by any advocate or chartered accountant. The Tribunal decided the case based on the merits and the material available on record after hearing the Departmental Representative.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 773426 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Appeal Filed On: 07-07-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANDHYA RANI KURE
• Keywords: Business income

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ए’ Ɋायपीठ, चेɄई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI ŵी एस.एस. िवʷनेũ रिव, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी रȉेश नंदन सहाय, लेखा सद˟ क े समƗ Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1936/Chny/2025 िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: 2021-22 Jayaprakash (HUF), 98/1A2, 118/4B1, Mataparpudoor Road, Kadhapalli PO, Namakkal Tk, Namakkal 637 003. [PAN:AAIHJ6329M] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Namakkal. (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) (ŮȑथŎ/Respondent) अपीलाथŎ की ओर से / Appellant by : None ŮȑथŎ की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 17.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 23.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 13.05.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the assessment year 2021-22. 2. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor filed any petition seeking adjournment. Moreover, on perusal of the records, we note that the assessee has also Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.1936/Chny/25 2 not filed Vakkalath/power of Attorney authorising any Advocate/ C.A to represent the case. Thus, the assessee called absent and set exparte. We proceed to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the ld. DR and basing on the material available on record. 3. After hearing the ld. DR, we find that the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] and issued notice on 29.08.2024. In response to the notice, the assessee filed its reply dated 11.09.2024 and the same is reproduced at pages 4 and 5 of the penalty order. We find the reasons stated by the assessee in respect of the delay in filing the audit report for the year under consideration is first year; the Accountant of the assessee was suffering from Corona and due to huge tax liability. The Assessing Officer did not accept the said submissions and held that the assessee is required to get its accounts audited as total sales as per assessment order is ₹.46,92,09,110/- and thereby, for non-getting the accounts audited and non-furnishing of said audit report within the specified due date under section 44AB of the Act, levied penalty of ₹.1,50,000/- under section 271B of the Act. We find that the ld. CIT(A) discussed the said issue in detail and held the view of the Assessing Officer is correct in imposing penalty under section 271B of the Act for non-auditing the Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.1936/Chny/25 3 accounts and non-furnishing the same within the specified due date before the Assessing officer. Since the assessee failed to comply with the statutory provision, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and it is justified. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed. 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 23rd September, 2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 23.09.2025 Vm/- आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant, 2.ŮȑथŎ/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयुƅ/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध/DR & 5. गाडŊ फाईल/GF. Printed from counselvise.com "