9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (5) TMI 73 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271B - non-filing of Tax audit report u/sec. 44AB of the Act within the due date under section 139(1) - HELD THAT - As per the provisions, the return of income along with tax audit report has to filed on or before 30.09.2013 for the said Assessment Year. Whereas The CBDT has issued notification by extending the due date, as per the order under section 119 of the Act from 30.09.2013 to 31.10.2013. The assessee firm has made submissions before the ld. CIT(A) that there is a marginal delay of 29 days in submitting the Tax Audit Report and filing the income tax return and there is no Wanton Act for the delay. We find the explanations that the assessee is a Chartered Accountants firm and dealing in auditing of books of Accounts of the Trust. In this particular Assessment Year, the return of income of the Trust have to filed electronically with the Income Tax Department's website. And due to technical issues and pressure of work, the assessee firm could not file their return of income within the due date specified under section 139(1) - Thus the delay is filling is not a wanton act and the explanations has a reasonable cause. Accordingly, we set-aside the order of ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing officer to delete the penalty - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
Levy of penalty under section 271B for non-filing of Tax audit report within the due date. Analysis: The appellant, a partnership firm of Chartered Accountants, filed its income tax return with a total income of ?18,13,363 on 29.11.2013, after the due date specified under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated penalty proceedings under section 271B as the firm failed to submit the Tax Audit Report under section 44AB before the due date. Despite explanations citing technical difficulties and workload pressure, the AO levied a penalty of ?46,462. The Commissioner of Income-tax Appeals upheld the penalty, leading the appellant to appeal before the ITAT. During the ITAT hearing, no representation was made by the appellant, and the arguments of the Departmental Representative (DR) were considered. The key issue revolved around the penalty imposed under section 271B for the delayed filing of the Tax audit report. The AO justified the penalty due to a 29-day delay in filing the return and report. However, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) had extended the due date from 30.09.2013 to 31.10.2013. The appellant contended that the delay was marginal, with no deliberate intent, attributing it to technical challenges and workload pressures. The firm, specializing in auditing, faced difficulties in electronically filing the returns due to technical glitches. Considering the explanations, the ITAT found the delay to be reasonable, not intentional, and directed the AO to cancel the penalty, allowing the appellant's appeal. In conclusion, the ITAT ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the penalty imposed by the lower authorities. The decision highlighted the genuine reasons for the delay, emphasizing technical issues and workload pressures faced by the Chartered Accountants firm. The ITAT's verdict underscored the absence of deliberate misconduct, leading to the cancellation of the penalty under section 271B.
|
