9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Penalty under section 271B imposed for non-auditing of accounts. Analysis: The appeal was against the penalty imposed under section 271B of the Income Tax Act for non-auditing of accounts related to the assessment year 1999-2000. The assessee, engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of lime and kilns, maintained separate accounts for two concerns. The turnover of both concerns totaled Rs. 73,17,025. The accounts of the second concern were not audited, leading to the penalty imposition by the Assessing Officer (AO). The assessee's defense was based on the reliance on a chartered accountant, who audited the first concern's accounts but did not audit the second concern's accounts due to legal advice. The AO imposed a penalty of 1/2 per cent on the total turnover, which was upheld by the CIT(A). The contention of the assessee was that the chartered accountant audited the accounts of the first concern, where the turnover exceeded Rs. 40 lakhs, and compiled the balance sheet of the second concern without auditing it. The assessee, being illiterate, argued that heavy penalties should not be imposed. The Department's stand was that the chartered accountant was not produced for examination, and the CIT(A) emphasized the need for evidence to support the claim. The appointment of a new chartered accountant was also highlighted, who had no objection from the previous accountant. Affidavits and submissions supported that the previous accountant handled all tax matters for the assessee. It was concluded that the assessee, being illiterate, relied on the chartered accountant's expertise, and there was a reasonable cause for the non-compliance with the auditing requirement. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's reliance on the chartered accountant was justified, and there was a reasonable cause for the failure to comply with the auditing provisions. The non-production of the chartered accountant before the AO was viewed in the context of the complex situation faced by the assessee. The appointment of a new chartered accountant and the lack of objection from the previous accountant further supported the assessee's position. The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271B was wrongly sustained and ordered for its deletion. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the penalty was set aside.
|
