Saroj Kumar Sahoo Vs DCIT, Cuttack

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Saroj Kumar Sahoo, is a dealer in vehicles and has an agency for Hero Moto Corp. His turnover for the assessment year 2016-2017 was Rs.13,99,75,418/-. Since his turnover exceeded the mandatory limit for audit under section 44AB of the Act, he was required to e-file the audit report by 30.09.2016. However, he uploaded the audit report on 31.03.2018, which was beyond the due date. Consequently, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271B of the Act and levied a penalty of Rs.1,50,000/-. The assessee appealed against this order, arguing that he was seriously ill and undergoing medical treatment, which prevented him from getting his accounts audited within the stipulated time. The Revenue argued that despite his illness, the assessee was able to manage his business and achieve a significant turnover, hence the penalty should be upheld.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the penalty levied under section 271B of the Act for not getting the accounts audited within the stipulated time is justified?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• Meenakshisundaram Balamurugan Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Dindigul

• M/s Nirvana Nest Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-14

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2018-19Allowed

• Tanalur Service Co-operative Bank Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax

  Cochin bench

• GC Vidyadevi Vs. The Income Tax Officer

  Cochin bench

• Mahadev Stone Works vs. ITO Ward-3(3)

  Varanasi bench

• M/s. Palliyakkal Service Co-op Bank Ltd. vs. The Income Tax Officer

  Cochin bench