9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Penalty under section 271B cancellation by CIT(A). Analysis: The appellate tribunal ITAT Pune considered the appeal by the Revenue against the cancellation of penalty under section 271B amounting to Rs. 81,656. The assessee-firm was required to get its accounts audited under section 44AB by the specified due date of 30th November, 1990. However, the tax audit report was obtained on 14th April, 1991, which was 4-1/2 months late. The penalty proceedings were initiated by the Assessing Officer (AO) on 25th March, 1992, before the completion of assessment proceedings on 28th September, 1992. The CIT(A) deleted the penalty after considering various reasons presented by the assessee for the delay, including the destruction of records due to fire, embezzlement of cash, health issues of a partner's mother, and business difficulties. The CIT(A) held that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from obtaining the audit report on time and that penalty proceedings were initiated prematurely. The Departmental Representative supported the AO's order, citing a precedent from the Hyderabad Bench. The counsel for the assessee argued that the fire incident and health issues of a partner's mother were reasonable causes for the delay. The counsel also highlighted the managing partner's involvement in loan proposals and project reports, leading to a marginal delay of 4-1/2 months. The counsel referenced several cases to support the argument for upholding the CIT(A)'s decision. The tribunal noted that the delay was nominal and found reasonable cause for the delay as presented by the CIT(A) and the assessee's counsel. Additionally, it emphasized that penalty proceedings should have been initiated during the assessment proceedings, not before completion. Referring to a precedent from the Ahmedabad Bench, the tribunal concluded that the penalty levied by the AO could not be sustained. Consequently, the tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal, upholding the cancellation of the penalty under section 271B. In conclusion, the tribunal's detailed analysis considered the reasons for the delay in obtaining the audit report, the premature initiation of penalty proceedings, and the legal requirements for sustaining the penalty under section 271B. The decision highlighted the importance of reasonable cause and procedural compliance in penalty imposition, ultimately affirming the CIT(A)'s ruling.
|
