Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 857 - AT - Income TaxIssues: The appeal challenges the levy of penalty u/s 271B of the Act for Assessment Year 2011-12 due to an inadvertent mistake in filling the columns in the ITR regarding audit requirements u/s 44AB. Summary: The appellant, an assessee, filed an appeal against the penalty imposed u/s 271B of the Act for not conducting an audit as required u/s 44AB. The appellant's counsel argued that there was a clerical mistake in the ITR columns, leading to the incorrect indication of not being liable for audit u/s 44AB. The audit report was obtained and filed within the prescribed time, supported by an affidavit. The authorities wrongly interpreted the situation, leading to the penalty imposition. The appellant's contention was supported by the case of Sujata Trading (P) Ltd. v. ITO, where a similar situation led to the penalty being set aside. The Tribunal held that since the audit report was obtained before the due date for filing the return, the penalty u/s 271B was unjustified. Similarly, in the present case, the appellant's inadvertent error in filling the audit details column should not result in the penalty imposition. The Tribunal found the lower authorities' decision to sustain the penalty to be incorrect and set it aside. The penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- u/s 271B was deleted, and the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed. The order was pronounced on 11.01.2024 at ITAT Amritsar Bench, Amritsar, under Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.
|