9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (8) TMI 648 - AT - Income TaxLevy of penalty u/s. 271B - no accounts tax audited u/s.44AB - debatable issue - Whether the expression Management Consultancy could not be brought within the ambit of technical consultancy ? - HELD THAT - The expression Technical Consultancy would only mean rendering of technical services by assessee. In our considered opinion, the expression Management Consultancy could not be brought within the ambit of technical consultancy . Hence, we hold that the provisions of Section 44AA(1) of the Act cannot be made applicable to the assessee in the instant case. Hence, assessee is not liable for getting its accounts tax audited u/s.44AB - the assessee had entertained the bonafide plea that the receipts earned by him for rendering Management Consultancy Services is only a business receipt and not professional receipt. This bonafide plea of the assessee has not been doubted by the Revenue but the Revenue had only tried to take different stand by giving different interpretation to the provisions of Section 44AA of the Act and classifying receipts thereon as professional receipts so as to make assessee eligible for getting its accounts audited u/s.44AB This becomes debatable issue. Hence, the bonafide plea of the assessee coupled with different interpretation given by the Revenue thereby making the issue debatable, would constitute reasonable cause within the meaning of Section 273B of the Act and hence in any case, the assessee would be protected by the immunity provided in Section 273B of the Act. Accordingly, no penalty u/s.271B of the Act could be levied - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
Imposition of penalty u/s.271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2015-16. Analysis: The primary issue in this appeal was whether the imposition of penalty u/s.271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was justified by the ld. CIT(A) for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The assessee, an individual engaged in the business of Management Consultancy services, had filed the return of income declaring total income, including Management Consultancy fee. The penalty was levied by the ld. AO on the grounds that the assessee should have got its accounts audited u/s.44AB of the Act since the gross receipts exceeded the specified limit. The assessee contended that as they were engaged in the business of rendering Management Consultancy Services, the accounts audit eligibility would arise only if the gross receipts exceeded a certain threshold. Despite the objections raised by the assessee, the penalty was upheld by the ld. CIT(A). The crux of the issue revolved around whether the assessee should be considered engaged in the profession of Management Consultancy or in the business of rendering Management Consultancy Services. The Revenue's argument was based on the tax deductions made by clients under a specific section of the Act, implying the assessee was in the profession of Management Consultancy. However, the Tribunal held that the rate of tax deductions by clients was irrelevant in determining the character of receipts in the hands of the assessee. The Tribunal also noted that the expression "Management Consultancy" did not fall under the professions specified in the relevant section of the Act, and thus, the provisions regarding accounts audit were not applicable to the assessee. Additionally, the Tribunal considered the assessee's plea as a bonafide one, protected by the immunity provided in the Act, and concluded that no penalty should be levied in this case. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, emphasizing that the Revenue's attempt to classify the receipts as professional rather than business receipts was debatable. The Tribunal found the assessee's plea to be bonafide and protected under the Act, thereby ruling in favor of the assessee and disallowing the penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2015-16.
|
