9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (1) TMI 81 - HC - Income TaxPenalty proceedings under section 271B on account of delayed filing of return - In its reply, the assessee tried to explain delay in the filing of return by stating that its partners were not well educated; that its accountant had left the service and that the chartered accountant had delayed preparation of the audit report. The Assessing Officer did not accept the explanation of the assessee, albeit without assigning cogent reasons and imposed penalty of Rs. one lakh. - Held that explanation given by the assessee for delayed filing of the audit report was genuine and bona fide and the Assessing Officer committed a serious illegality by imposing penalty under section 271B
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who deleted the penalty imposed under section 271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Confirmation of the Order of CIT(A) by the Tribunal: The Tribunal confirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)), who deleted the penalty of Rs. 1 lakh imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) considered several factors, including the lack of education of the partners, the departure of the accountant, the illness of one partner, and the delay caused by the chartered accountant. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the reasons provided by the assessee were sufficient to justify the delay in filing the audit report. 2. Levy of Penalty under Section 271B: Section 271B of the Act empowers the Assessing Officer to impose a penalty if an assessee fails to get their accounts audited or furnish the audit report as required under section 44AB. However, the provision is not mandatory; it allows for discretion based on "reasonable cause." The Tribunal and the CIT(A) found that the explanation provided by the assessee constituted a reasonable cause, thus negating the need for a penalty. 3. Interpretation of Section 44AB and Section 271B: The court emphasized that section 44AB imposes a duty on persons carrying on business to get their accounts audited and furnish the report by a specified date. Section 271B allows for the imposition of a penalty for non-compliance but is not obligatory. The court highlighted that the use of "reasonable cause" and "may" indicates discretion on the part of the Assessing Officer. 4. Case Law References: The judgment referenced several cases to support its interpretation, including: - CIT v. Mussadilal Ram Bharose (1987): Established that the onus is on the assessee to show the difference in income was not due to fraud or neglect. - ITO v. Kaysons India (2000): Clarified that amendments in 1995 required the audit report to be furnished before the specified date, but prior to this, no such requirement existed. - Mohan Trading Co. v. Union of India (1985) and CIT v. Ramkrishna Stores (2002): Held that penalty imposition under section 271B is not automatic and can be avoided with a reasonable explanation. - ITO v. Nanak Singh Guliani (2002): Stated that section 271B's use of "may" indicates discretion in imposing penalties. - CIT v. Capital Electronics (Gariahat) (2003): Discussed the nature of penalties as coercive measures rather than quasi-criminal actions. 5. Reasonableness of the Assessee's Explanation: The court found that the assessee's explanation for the delay, including the departure of the accountant, the illness of a partner, and the delay by the chartered accountant, was genuine and bona fide. The Assessing Officer's rejection of this explanation without cogent reasons was deemed a serious illegality. Conclusion: The court concluded that the Tribunal was correct in confirming the CIT(A)'s order to delete the penalty. The assessee's explanation for the delay was reasonable, and the imposition of the penalty under section 271B was not justified. The reference made by the Tribunal was answered in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue.
|
