Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai

Elangovan Mathiyazhagan,Kanceepuram vs Non Corp.Cir 22(1)(Tbm)Chen, Chennai on 19 March, 2026

   आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "सी"                       ायपीठ चे ई म।
      IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
          CHENNAI BENCHES "C" :: CHENNAI

 BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
                       AND
      SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

             आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.3438/CHNY/2025
                 नधारण वष / Assessment Year: 2019-20
  Elangovan Mathiyazhagan,           V The Commissioner of Income
  8B, Nadu Street, Pillaiyarpalayam, s Tax (Appeals),
  Kanchipuram - 631502                 NFAC, Non Corp. Cir(22)1,
                                       Tambaram.
  PAN: APWPM5970N
         Appellant/ Assessee              Respondent / Revenue

  Assessee by              Mr. N.Arjun Raj - Advocate
  Revenue by               Ms. R Anitha - Addl.CIT
  Date of hearing          19/02/2026
  Date of pronouncement    19/03/2026

                            आदे श/ ORDER

PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM :

This appeal filed by the Assessee directed against the order of The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], Delhi dated 30.09.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2019-20.

ITA No.3438/CHNY/2025 [A]

2. The Assessee raised the following grounds of appeal :

"1) On the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Assessing Centre Delhi had erred in levying penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- U/s.271B of the Income Tax Act.
2) On the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Assessing Centre Delhi had not accepting the plea of the Appellant that the penal provision do not apply to the above appellant case.
3) The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Assessing Centre-Delhi should have accepted the submissions of the appellant that the there is no default that warning penalty U/s.271B of the Income Tax Act
4) The Learned the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Assessing Centre Delhi should have accepted the submission of the appellant that Appellant had estimation basis and when such estimate of Income is made is it not mandatory to get the accounts audited.
5) The Appellant reserves his rights add, amend any of the grounds above."

3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an Individual engaged in the retail business of trading of textile products. The appellant filed the return of income for the assessment year 2019-20 dated 19.03.2020 disclosing income of Rs.95,99,469/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the National e-Assessment Centre of the Department vide order dated 16.04.2021 passed u/s.143 r.w.s. 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at a total income of Rs.2,17,90,164/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.1,21,90,872/- 2 ITA No.3438/CHNY/2025 [A] based on the declaration given by the appellant during course of survey proceedings by admitting the excess stock.

4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, an appeal was preferred before the ld.CIT(A) which is pending disposal. While matter stood thus, the Assessing Officer had levied a penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- u/s.271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for failure of the appellant to furnish Audit Report as prescribed u/s.44AB of the Act, vide order dated 23.01.2022.

5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the ld.CIT(A) who vide impugned order confirmed the levy of penalty, as no reasonable cause was shown for failure to get the accounts audited and furnish the Audit Report u/s.44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. We had carefully gone through the orders passed by lower authorities. We find that the appellant had not filed any explanation showing the reasonable cause for the failure to get the accounts audited and furnish Audit Report as prescribed u/s.44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the absence of reasonable cause, the Assessing Officer had rightly levied the penalty 3 ITA No.3438/CHNY/2025 [A] u/s.271B of the Act. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of the ld.CIT(A), accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 19th March, 2026.

                 Sd/-                                          Sd/-
  (MANU KUMAR GIRI)                        (INTURI RAMA RAO)
   JUDICIAL MEMBER                        ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Chennai; दनांक / Dated : 19th March, 2026
SGR, Sr.PS
आदे श क      त ल प अ े षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1.     अपीलाथ / The Appellant.
2.       यथ / The Respondent.

3. The CIT Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem.

4. वभागीय त न ध, आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, "सी" बच, चे नई / DR, ITAT Chennai.

5. गाड फ़ाइल / Guard File.

4