2020 (4) TMI 652 - AT - Income Tax

Levy of penalty u/s.271B - belated submission of tax audit report - HELD THAT - Admittedly, tax audit report was filed alongwith return filed in response to show cause notice issued u/s.148 of the Act which means that the Assessing Officer had the benefit of tax audit report and no prejudice can said to have been caused for the Department on account of belated submission of tax audit report. See P. SENTHIL KUMAR VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, CHENNAI 2019 (1) TMI 222 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - we are of the considered opinion that levy of penalty u/s.271B of the Act is not warranted. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against levy of penalty u/s 271B of the Income Tax Act
- Justifiability of penalty for non-submission of Audit Report u/s 44AB
- Consideration of reasonable cause for non-compliance with section 44AB
- Applicability of case laws and authorities in penalty imposition
- Effect of filing tax audit report along with return of income on penalty levy

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) order confirming the penalty u/s 271B for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16. The identical facts and issues in both appeals were disposed of through a common order.

2. The main contention was regarding the levy of penalty u/s 271B for non-submission of the tax audit report as required by section 44AB of the Income Tax Act. The appellant argued that there was a reasonable cause for the delay in submitting the audit report, which was beyond their control, and that the report was filed along with the return of income before the completion of assessment proceedings.

3. The Assessing Officer had issued a notice u/s 148 of the Act based on the belated filing of the return of income. Subsequently, a penalty was imposed for not submitting the tax audit report within the due date. The appellant contended that since the report was available to the Assessing Officer before the completion of assessment proceedings, no prejudice was caused to the Department.

4. The appellant relied on the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in a similar case to support their argument that the penalty was not justified in this scenario. The Court's decision emphasized the importance of considering reasonable causes for non-compliance and highlighted that a technical breach may not warrant penalty imposition if there was a genuine belief in compliance with statutory obligations.

5. After considering the submissions and legal precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty u/s 271B was not warranted in this case. The Tribunal found that the explanation provided by the appellant for the delay in filing the audit report was reasonable, and the Assessing Officer had the report before finalizing the assessment. Therefore, the orders of the lower authorities imposing the penalty were set aside, and the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the penalty levied u/s 271B.

6. Consequently, the appeals against the penalty imposition for both assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16 were allowed based on the reasoning that the penalty was not justified given the circumstances of the case and the timely availability of the audit report to the Assessing Officer.

This detailed analysis highlights the key legal arguments, factual background, and the Tribunal's reasoning behind allowing the appeals against the penalty imposition in both assessment years.