9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 732 - AT - Income TaxPenalty under section 271B - delay in filing of tax audit report - Held that - In the present case, it appears that statutory audit of the assessee got completed on 27.11.2009 and on the same date tax audit report was signed. The assessee filed the return of income on 28.01.2010 and the delay in getting the tax audit report was due to the delay in completing the statutory audit. The assessee was prevented by sufficient cause for non-compliance with the provisions of section 44AB. As decided in APL (India) Private Limited Versus JCIT (OSD) -8(1), Mumbai 2014 (4) TMI 206 - ITAT MUMBAI held that delay in completion of statutory audit was reasonable cause for non- compliance with section 44AB and it was held that Tribunal was right in cancelling penalty levied under section 271B - CIT(A) was not right in upholding the levy of penalty under section 271B Decided in favor of Assessee.
Issues:
Penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Issue of Penalty under Section 271B: The appeal was against the penalty imposed under section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, amounting to ?1,00,000. The assessee had explained the reasons for the delay in filing the tax audit report, attributing it to factors beyond their control, such as changes in personnel, migration to a new accounting system, and technical difficulties. The Assessing Officer (AO) had issued a show cause notice, and the appellant failed to file a reply within the specified time frame. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the penalty, citing non-compliance with the statutory audit date. However, the appellant argued that the delay was due to the late completion of the statutory audit, which was beyond their control. The appellant cited a similar case where the penalty was deleted due to reasonable cause for the delay in compliance. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's arguments, emphasizing that the delay in completing the statutory audit constituted a reasonable cause for non-compliance with section 44AB. Following precedent, the Tribunal deleted the penalty, as there was no contrary decision presented. 2. Judicial Precedents and Legal Interpretation: The Tribunal based its decision on legal provisions and judicial precedents, emphasizing the importance of proving reasonable cause for failure to comply with statutory requirements. Section 273B was highlighted, indicating that penalty imposition depends on proving the absence of reasonable cause. The Tribunal clarified that the discretion to impose a penalty lies with the taxing authority, considering the circumstances of each case. The Tribunal stressed that the statute's language, particularly the term "may," allows for discretion in penalty imposition based on sufficient grounds. The Tribunal also referenced a case where the delay in completing the statutory audit was accepted as a reasonable cause for non-compliance, leading to the cancellation of the penalty under section 271B. 3. Conclusion and Decision: In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, deleting the penalty levied under section 271B. The Tribunal found the facts of the case aligning with a previous case where the penalty was deleted due to a reasonable cause for the delay in compliance. No contradictory decision was presented, leading the Tribunal to follow the precedent and rule in favor of the assessee. The decision was based on the principle that delay in completing the statutory audit constituted a valid reason for the delay in filing the tax audit report, warranting the deletion of the penalty. This detailed analysis outlines the key issues, legal interpretations, judicial precedents, and the final decision of the Appellate Tribunal in the case concerning the penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act.
|
