Case Law Details
Mohd Zaheeruddin Zeeshan Ayub Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)
Learned Counsel contended during the course of hearing that this assessee is drawing salary income on regular basis and it was only in the impugned assessment year that he had carried out corresponding transactions requiring audit report u/s.44AB of the Act. He therefore pleaded assessee’s ignorance only as a reasonable cause u/s. 273 for deleting the impugned penalty under Section 271B.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to assessee’s vehement contentions and find no merit therein. It is an admitted fact that the assessee’s case is very well covered u/s.44AB of the Act as his turnover has indeed exceeded the basic threshold limit of Rs.40 lakhs in the relevant previous year. There is further no dispute that neither the assessee had got prepared his audit report nor the same had been furnished well within time to the assessing authority; as the case may be. We therefore hold that mere ignorance of law pleaded herein at the assessee’s behest hardly deserves to be treated as a reasonable cause for disturbing the impugned penalty as upheld in the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion. The same stands confirmed therefore.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT HYDERABAD
This assessee’s appeal for AY.2014-15 arises from the CIT(A)-6, Hyderabad’s order dated 25-04-2019 passed in case No.10301/2018-19/C/CIT(A)-6, involving proceedings u/s.271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]. Heard both the parties. Case files perused.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
