Case Law Details
Shri Palabathuni Chandra Ravi Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)
Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income electronically on 21.1.2018 declaring total income at Rs.6,21,210/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee deposited a total of Rs. 15,78,19,159/- during the demonetization period which is on account of sale of petrol, diesel and lubricants. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act on 23.12.2019 assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.6,21,120. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271B of the Act on the ground that the turnover of the assessee is at Rs. 17,49,27,756/- which exceeds the limit as mandated under the provisions of section 44AB of the I.T. Act. It was explained by the assessee that he got his accounts audited u/s 44AB of the Act within the stipulated time under the I.T. Act. However, he could not file the same due to ill health and immobility as he was advised to take rest for 3 months. The assessee also filed the Doctor’s certificate and requested to drop the penalty proceedings issued u/s 271B of the I.T. Act.
However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee. According to him, the certificate furnished by the assessee was not certified from any specialist doctor related to any recognized/specialty hospital but certified from a private hospital run by an MBBS doctor whereas the disease mentioned in the certificate was low back pain with enteric fever (nerve) which requires supervision from a specialist doctor in that field. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee and relying on various decisions, the Assessing Officer levied a penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- u/s 271B of the I.T. Act.
As mentioned by the CIT (A)-NFAC, despite a number of opportunities granted, the assessee did not comply to the statutory notices for which CIT (A)-NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. Although the learned Counsel for the assessee filed certain decisions before us to substantiate that the penalty should not be levied u/s 271B of the Act when there is a reasonable cause, however, considering the fact that the assessee did not comply to the statutory notices issued by the CIT (A)-NFAC, for which he dismissed the appeal, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the CIT (A)-NFAC with a direction to grant one last opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case and decide the issue as per fact and law.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT HYDERABAD
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
