9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 413 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s. 271B - delay the filing of the tax audit report - filed after a gap of 7 months 5 days - non-compliance with the statutory provision of the Act - assessee submitted that the return of income and tax audit report was uploaded on income tax website after the due date only because of technical default as PAN of it was not registered on income tax website - reasonable cause for the non-compliance - HELD THAT - It was the 1st year when it was made mandatory to upload the tax audit report online. Therefore, we can understand that the assessee may not be well aware of the procedures for uploading the tax audit report online. Being the 1st year of filing tax audit report online, we are taking the sympathetic view and accordingly directing the AO to delete the penalty under section 271B of the Act in the interest of the justice fair play. The assessee has made the substantial compliance by filing the tax audit report in which no specific defect was pointed out by the assessee in the assessment framed u/s 143(3). Therefore we are of the view that there was no palpable prejudice caused to the Revenue. See GOVIND GARG PROP. GARG ENTERPRISES VERSUS ITO, WARD- 2 (3) , AJMER 2017 (6) TMI 433 - ITAT JAIPUR There was no mala-fide intent of the assessee to delay the filing of the tax audit report. Therefore we are of the considered opinion the penalty under section 271B in the given facts circumstance is not sustainable. Second year of the assessee when it committed the default - whether the assessee was a serial defaulter in compliance with the provision of section Act - assessee was to file the tax audit report on 30-11-2014 but filed on 31-1-2015 for the AY 2014-15 with the delay of two months only - HELD THAT - First notice for the AY 2013-14 u/s 271B was issued on 11-3-2016 whereas the time limit to file the tax audit report for the year under consideration (2nd year) was 30-11-2014. Thus it is clear that the assessee was not aware of the proceeding of the section 271B which was initiated much later as discussed above. Therefore in our considered view, the assessee deserves the sympathetic view as taken in the AY 2013-14. In view of the above and considering the length of delay, we reverse the order the authorities below. Therefore the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Issues involved:
- Confirmation of penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act for different assessment years. Analysis: 1. ITA No.129/Rjt/2018 for AY 2013-14: - The assessee was penalized for late filing of the tax audit report under section 271B of the Act. - The assessee argued that the delay was due to a technical default as the PAN was not registered on the income tax website. - The CIT (A) upheld the penalty, stating the default was general without supporting evidence. - The ITAT found that it was the first year for online filing, and the assessee's lack of awareness justified the delay. - Citing precedents, the ITAT held the penalty was not justifiable due to a reasonable cause, reversing the lower authorities' decision. 2. ITA No.190/Rjt/2018 for AY 2014-15: - Similar facts to the previous case, with the delay attributed to a consultant's error. - The ITAT noted substantial compliance by the assessee and lack of specific defects in the assessment. - Considering the delay of only two months and the assessee's lack of awareness of penalty proceedings, the ITAT allowed the appeal. 3. ITA No.191/Rjt/2018 and ITA No.199/Rjt/2018 for AY 2014-15: - The issues were identical to the previous cases, and the ITAT reversed the decisions of the lower authorities. - Citing consistency with the previous judgments, the ITAT directed the deletion of penalties under section 271B of the Act for both cases. In conclusion, the ITAT allowed all appeals related to the confirmation of penalties under section 271B of the Income Tax Act for different assessment years, considering reasonable causes for the delays in filing the tax audit reports and the lack of mala-fide intent on the part of the assessee. The ITAT emphasized the importance of fair play and justice in tax penalty cases, ultimately reversing the decisions of the lower authorities and directing the deletion of the penalties imposed.
|
