Complex Sahar Village, Mumbai400 099 स्थायीलेखासं ./ जीआइआरसं ./ PAN No. AAECA6186G (अपीलाथी/Appellant) : (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Shri Aditya Tamboli & Ms. by Bhavani Shukla, Ld. ARs प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent : Shri Mehul Jain, Ld. DR by सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 31.01.2022 Date of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 28.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement आदे श / O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, Judicial Member: The present Appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 27th February 2019, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 16 in short 2 I.T.A. No. 2856 /Mum/2 019 M/s Air India Air Transport Services Ltd referred as „Ld. CIT(A)‟, Mumbai, dated 04.04.19 for Assessment Year (in short AY) 201313. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal, which are as under: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming penalty levied by the Assessing officer of Rs.1,50,000/ u/s.271B of the Income Tax 1961. 2. The learned CIT (A) erred in confirming penalty levied by A.O. U/s.271B of the I.T. Act 1961 without considering provisions of Sec. 273B of the Income Tax Act 1961. 3. The learned CIT (A) considering the facts and circumstances of the case ought to have held that the Appellant had a reasonable cause for delay in obtaining Tax Audit Report u/s of the Income Tax Act 1961 and further held that penalty u/s.271B of Rs.1,50,000/ was not leviable. 4. It is submitted that the learned CIT (A) ought to have directed the D.C.I.T. to cancel the order levying penalty U/s.271B. 3 I.T.A. No. 2856 /Mum/2 019 M/s Air India Air Transport Services Ltd 5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal or to add any further grounds of appeal if considered necessary. 2. The chronology of the events is that the assessee is a public sector company wholly owned by the Govt. of India and subsidiary to Air India Ltd. had efiled its return of income on 24.09.13 declaring current year loss of Rs. 93,14,039/. The accounts of the assessee were not audited as on date of filing of the original return. Subsequent to this, the assessee company revised its return of income on 12.12.2014, declaring total income at Rs. Nil after claiming carryforward of current year's loss at Rs. 93,14,039/. The revision of returns was reasoned to be for claiming additional TDS. The assessee company again revised its return of income on 07.01.2015, declaring total income at Rs. 1,36,45,690/. Subsequent to the tax audit report dated 23.01.14, the return was revised to offer the correct income as per the audited accounts. After processing the return u/s 143(1) of I.T. Act, 1961, the case was selected for scrutiny and assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the IT Act was passed on 04.03.2016. 4 I.T.A. No. 2856 /Mum/2 019 M/s Air India Air Transport Services Ltd 3. During the assessment proceedings, the P & L Account revealed that assessee had received gross business receipts to the tune of Rs. 74,79,10,876/. The contention of the AO was that as per section 44AB of the IT Act, the assessee ought to have got its account audited for the AY 201314 by an auditor before the specified date and subsequently should have furnished such report in the prescribed form duly signed and verified with such particulars on or before 30.09.2013 for AY 201314. But the tax audit report in Form 3CD was filed with much delay only on 17.09.2014 and the assessee has t