SAROJ KUMAR SAHOO,JAJPUR V. DCIT, CUTTACK

ITA 344/CTK/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Saroj Kumar Sahoo, a vehicle dealer with a turnover exceeding Rs. 13.99 Crores, who failed to get his accounts audited by the deadline of September 30, 2016, as mandated by section 44AB of the Income Tax Act. The audit report was filed late on March 31, 2018. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated penalty proceedings under section 271B of the Act, leading to a penalty of Rs. 1,50,000. The assessee argued that his serious illness, which required surgeries in 2013 and 2018, prevented him from managing his business and getting the accounts audited on time. However, the Tribunal found no merit in this argument, noting that despite his illness, the assessee managed to achieve significant business turnover and thus was responsible for ensuring the audit was completed on time.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 472120 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 14-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 14-08-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S.C.MOHANTY
• Assessee Lawyers: CHITTA RANJAN SAHOO
• Section: 271B

Judgement Text

" आयकर आयकर आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण अिधकरण अिधकरण, कटक कटक कटक कटक \u0001यायपीठ \u0001यायपीठ \u0001यायपीठ \u0001यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं सं सं सं/ITA No.344/CTK/2024 (िनधा\u0005रण िनधा\u0005रण िनधा\u0005रण िनधा\u0005रण वष\u0005 वष\u0005 वष\u0005 वष\u0005 / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Saroj Kumar Sahoo, Kuakhia, Rasulpur, Jajpur, Odisha Vs DCIT, Cuttack PAN No. :ACTPS 8529 H (अपीलाथ\u000f अपीलाथ\u000f अपीलाथ\u000f अपीलाथ\u000f /Appellant) .. (\u0010\u0011यथ\u000f \u0010\u0011यथ\u000f \u0010\u0011यथ\u000f \u0010\u0011यथ\u000f / Respondent) िनधा\u0005\u0013रती िनधा\u0005\u0013रती िनधा\u0005\u0013रती िनधा\u0005\u0013रती क\u0016 क\u0016 क\u0016 क\u0016 ओर ओर ओर ओर से से से से /Assessee by : Shri Chitta Ranjan Sahoo, Advocate राज\u0018व राज\u0018व राज\u0018व राज\u0018व क\u0016 क\u0016 क\u0016 क\u0016 ओर ओर ओर ओर से से से से /Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr.DR सुनवाई क\u0002 तारीख / Date of Hearing : 14/10/2024 घोषणा क\u0002 तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 14/10/2024 आदेश आदेश आदेश आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 15.07.2024, passed in DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1066716205(1) for the assessment year 2016-2017, on the following grounds of appeal :- 1. That the learned A.O. should not have imposed penalty of Rs.1,50,000.00 as the Assessee had sufficient cause of non filling and could not upload the return in due time. Ignoring the explanation of the Assessee, the Ld.AO passed the order in a hurried manner which is not justified in the eye of law. 2. That the impugned order of penalty U/S.271B OF THE ACT is illegal and not justified under the facts and circumstances of the case and is without the authority of Iaw, as such, the same is liable to be quashed in the interest of justice. 3. That the impugned imposition of penalty under section 271B of the Act is not justified and is not sustainable in the eye of law. 4. For that, the Assessee craves leave of your Honour to urge other grounds of appeal, if any, at the time of hearing. ITA No.344/CTK/2024 2 3. The only issue involved in this appeal is in regard to levy of penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- u/s.271B of the Act on account of not getting the accounts audited within the stipulated time period. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a dealer in vehicles and is having agency of Hero Moto Corp. The turnover of the assessee in the year was at Rs.13,99,75,418/-, however, since the assessee’s turnover is exceed the mandatory limited of audit u/s.44AB of the Act, therefore, he is required to e-file the audit report as prescribed u/s.44AB of the Act within the due date i.e. upto 30.09.2016. Since the assessee has uploaded the audit report in Form 3CB through e-filing portal on 31.03.2018, which is beyond the due date as prescribed u/s.139(1) of the Act, therefore, the AO initiated the penalty proceedings u/s.271B of the Act and levied the penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- for not getting the accounts audited within the due date. 5. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee was suffering from serious illness and was under medical treatment during the period and the business of the assessee was looking after by his employees and, therefore, he could not get his accounts audited within the due date. He further submitted that the assessee was undergone two surgeries one in 2013 and other one in 2018 and due to this prolonged illness, he was not attended the office properly and this is sufficient reason for not getting his accounts audited within the stipulated period. He, therefore, prayed for deleting of the penalty so levied. ITA No.344/CTK/2024 3 6. Per Contra, ld. Sr. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities and vehemently argued that assessee was able to achieve the turnover for Rs.13,99,75,418/- despite of serious illness and, therefore, the reason given is not proper and requested for upholding the penalty levied u/s.271B of the Act. 7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In this case, undisputedly the audit report was filed belatedly i.e not within the stipulated time period as provided under the Act. Except stating that the assessee was seriously ill during the period, the ld. AR has not brought on record the necessary details. Further though the assessee was under the medical treatment, however, he was attaining his day-to-day business, which is evident from the volume of turnover achieved by him of more than Rs.13.99 Crores. Once the assessee is able to attend the job as he is the sole person handling and managing the business affairs, it is his duties to get his accounts audited within the stipulated time period. We find no merit in the argument of the ld. AR that due to the sickness the assessee could not get his accounts audited. Looking to these facts, we are of the view that the assessee has no reasonable explanation for not getting his accounts audited and filed within the stipulated time as provided u/s.139(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the penalty levied by the AO u/s.271B of the Act is hereby upheld. ITA No.344/CTK/2024 4 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 14/10/2024. Sd/- (GEORGE MATHAN) Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) \u0001याियक \u0001याियक \u0001याियक \u0001याियक सद\bय सद\bय सद\bय सद\bय / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद\u0003य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER कटक कटक कटक कटक Cuttack; \u0003दनांक Dated 14/10/2024 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S. आदेश आदेश आदेश आदेश क\u0002 क\u0002 क\u0002 क\u0002 \u0003ित \u0003ित \u0003ित \u0003ितिलिप िलिप िलिप िलिप अ\u0007ेिषत अ\u0007ेिषत अ\u0007ेिषत अ\u0007ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) आयकर आयकर आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकर अिधकर अिधकर अिधकरण ण ण ण, कटक कटक कटक कटक/ITAT, Cuttack 1. अपीलाथ\u0007 / The Appellant- Saroj Kumar Sahoo, Kuakhia, Rasulpur, Jajpur, Odisha 2. \b\tयथ\u0007 / The Respondent- DCIT, Cuttack 3. आयकर आयु\u0006(अपील) / The CIT(A), 4. आयकर आयु\r / CIT 5. िवभागीय \u0010ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, कटक कटक कटक कटक / DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. गाड\u0010 फाईल / Guard file. स\tयािपत \bित //True Copy// "