2017 (5) TMI 1165 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s. 271BA - non-filing of audit report in Form 3CEB in respect of the international transactions on or before the due date of filing the return u/s. 139(1) - assessee submitted that he was in a bonafide belief that no documents need to be filed along with the return of income in terms of explicit provisions contained section 139D(c) - Held that - We find that in the instant case that the assessee had made available the audit report in Form 3CEB on 20.01.2012 which was much before the completion of proceedings by the Ld. TPO on 22.01.2014. In this regard, the expression May used in section 271BA of the Act, in our considered opinion, needs to be viewed liberally, in view of the reasoning given by the assessee due to bonafide mistaken understanding of provisions contained in section 139D(c) of the Act which itself would determine reasonable cause in terms of section 273B of the Act. Case of CIT Vs. A.N. Arunachalam 1994 (1) TMI 65 - MADRAS High Court would clearly support the facts of the case of the assessee. We also find that it is not the case of the Revenue that audit report in Form 3CEB was not obtained by the assessee on 02.09.2010. Accordingly, we hold that the assessee had substantively compiled with the provisions of the Act by obtaining the audit report in time, by filing the same though belatedly on 20.01.2012 but before the date of completion of assessment. Thus no hesitation in directing the Ld. AO to delete the penalty u/s. 271BA - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Whether the levy of penalty under section 271BA of the Income Tax Act was justified for non-filing of audit report in Form 3CEB within the stipulated time.

Analysis:
1. The appeal arose from the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the penalty imposed under section 271BA of the Act. The only issue was whether the penalty was justified in the given circumstances.

2. The assessee had filed the return of income electronically but did not submit Form 3CEB before the due date, leading to scrutiny by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). The TPO did not suggest any adjustments to the Arms Length Price, and the assessment was completed without any additions related to international transactions.

3. The assessee contended that there was a reasonable cause for not filing the audit report along with the return, citing a mistaken understanding of the law. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty, prompting the appeal by the assessee on various grounds challenging the levy under section 271BA.

4. The AR argued that the audit report was obtained before the TPO's proceedings were completed, and the word "may" in section 271BA should be viewed liberally considering the reasonable cause shown by the assessee. The AR also relied on a decision of the Madras High Court to support the case.

5. The Tribunal found that the audit report was available to the TPO before the completion of proceedings, and the provisions of section 271BA should be interpreted liberally in light of the assessee's reasonable cause. Citing the Madras High Court decision, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, directing the AO to delete the penalty.

6. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the deletion of the penalty under section 271BA of the Act. The decision was based on the assessee's substantiated compliance with the Act and the liberal interpretation of the penalty provisions.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal arguments, factual background, and the Tribunal's reasoning leading to the decision to delete the penalty imposed under section 271BA of the Income Tax Act.