2016 (7) TMI 617 - AT - Income Tax

Levy of penalties u/s. 271B and 271F - non filing of tax audit report and non filing of return in time - Held that - We find that reasons for delay adduced by the assessee does not constitute a good and reasonable cause. It is very unlikely that the assessee being a company would be controlled by the Board of Directors who had not bothered to understand whether the income tax return of the company has been filed in time. It is very unlikely that they would remain silent with regard to discharge of their statutory obligations by placing reliance on their erstwhile Accountant as claimed by the assessee. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and respectfully following the decision of the Hon ble Kerala high Court in the case of Metro Agencies, 2013 (10) TMI 658 - KERALA HIGH COURT , we do not find any reason to interfere in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Appeal against penalties imposed under sections 271B and 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2005-06.
- Justification of penalties upheld by the Ld. CITA in the circumstances of the case.

Comprehensive Analysis:

Issue 1: Appeal against Penalties
The appeal arose from penalties imposed under sections 271B and 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2005-06. The assessee, a private limited company engaged in trading iron and steel, filed its return of income and tax audit report for the year on 28.09.2006, despite the due date being 31.10.2005. The penalties of ?1 lac and ?5,000 were imposed by the Ld. AO for non-filing of tax audit report and delayed filing of the return, respectively. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld these penalties on first appeal, leading the assessee to appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata.

Issue 2: Justification of Penalties
The primary contention of the assessee was the delay in filing the return and tax audit report was due to miscommunication and reliance on the former accountant. The assessee claimed to have audited its accounts in time, but the Ld. AO found the explanations unsatisfactory and imposed the penalties. The Ld. AR representing the assessee argued for the bona fide belief placed on the accountant, while the Ld. DR contended that compliance with ROC formalities contradicted non-compliance with income tax formalities. The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to substantiate its reliance on the accountant with evidence and did not file relevant documents to support its claims. Citing a decision by the Hon’ble Kerala High Court, the Tribunal emphasized the need for a valid cause for non-compliance to avoid penalties. The Tribunal concluded that the reasons provided by the assessee did not constitute a reasonable cause for the delay, highlighting the unlikelihood of the Board of Directors remaining unaware of the situation. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the penalties imposed by the Ld. CIT(A).

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata dismissed the appeal against the penalties imposed under sections 271B and 271F for AY 2005-06, finding the reasons for the delay in filing the return and tax audit report inadequate and lacking a valid cause for non-compliance. The Tribunal's decision was based on the failure of the assessee to provide sufficient evidence to support its claims and the unlikelihood of the Board of Directors being unaware of the situation.