2025 (1) TMI 243 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271B - failure of the assessee to get accounts audited in respect of the previous year as required u/s 44AB but before specified due date i.e. due date for filing the return of income - HELD THAT - Admittedly, the audit of Financial Year 2016-17 was completed in March 2019 obviously the audit of Financial Year 2017-18 cannot be done prior to that. We find force in the arguments of the assessee that under the above peculiar circumstances of the case the assessee was prevented by reasonable genuine cause for not getting the books of accounts completed audited in time. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee was prevented by sufficient reasonable cause for not getting the books of accounts audited in time. As relying on APL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS JCIT (OSD) -8(1), MUMBAI 2014 (4) TMI 206 - ITAT MUMBAI we hold that the assessee in the instant case was prevented by reasonable cause in not getting the accounts audited in time and accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty levied u/s 271B of the IT Act. Thus, the ground of appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:

Whether the penalty imposed under Section 271B of the Income Tax Act for failure to get accounts audited by the due date is justified.
Whether the appellant had a reasonable cause for the delay in obtaining the audit report for the assessment year 2018-19.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Justification of Penalty under Section 271B

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 271B of the Income Tax Act mandates a penalty for failure to get accounts audited as required under Section 44AB by the due date. However, Section 273B provides that no penalty shall be imposed if the assessee proves there was a reasonable cause for the failure.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal examined whether the appellant was prevented by reasonable cause from obtaining the audit report in time. The Tribunal considered the procedural aspects of Section 273B, which allows for the waiver of penalties if reasonable cause is demonstrated.
Key Evidence and Findings: The appellant argued that the delay was due to the impounding of documents during a survey and the subsequent delay in closing the accounts for the previous year. Additionally, the appellant's Chartered Accountant ceased practice, necessitating the appointment of a new auditor.
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal found that the appellant was indeed prevented by reasonable cause, as the completion of the audit for the financial year 2016-17 was delayed, which in turn delayed the audit for the financial year 2017-18.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue argued for the imposition of the penalty, relying on the orders of the subordinate authorities. However, the Tribunal found the appellant's arguments and evidence more compelling, given the circumstances.
Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the penalty under Section 271B should be deleted, as the appellant had a reasonable cause for the delay.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "According to section 273B, no penalty shall be imposable on the person or the assessee, as the case may be for any failure which inter alia include the defaults mentioned in section 271B, if he proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure."
Core Principles Established: The Tribunal reinforced the principle that penalties under Section 271B can be waived if the assessee demonstrates a reasonable cause for non-compliance, as provided under Section 273B.
Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- imposed under Section 271B, thereby allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.

The judgment underscores the importance of considering the specific circumstances of each case when evaluating the imposition of penalties under tax law, particularly where procedural delays are involved. The Tribunal's reliance on previous decisions, such as the case of APL (INDIA) (P) LTD vs. JCIT, highlights the consistency in applying the principle of reasonable cause in penalty cases.

← Previous Next →