Case Law Details
Iyergopal Ashokkumar Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai)
In this case, the penalty was levied under section 271 B of the Act on the ground that tax audit report under section 44AB of the Act was not filed by the assessee before filing of return of income and no explanation was given. The Assessing Officer has further stated that quantum addition settled under VSVS is different from levy of penalty under section 271 B of the Act. We find that the Assessing Officer has correctly decided the issue. Under these facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have been adjudicated the penalty levied under section 271 B of the Act on merits of the case instead of dismissing the appeal as infructuous. In our opinion, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is not correct. Therefore, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and direct the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeal filed against levy of penalty as to whether penalty is leviable under section 271 B of the Act or not in accordance with law by affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.v
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT CHENNAI
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (National Faceless Appeal Centre) [NFAC], Delhi dated 14.12.2022 relevant to the assessment year 2015-16.
2. The appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by two days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay against which, the ld. DR has not objected. Since the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause, we hereby condone the delay of two days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
