2012 (4) TMI 300 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271B - It was noticed by the assessing authority that the assessee has failed to furnish audit report alongwith the necessary enclosures in the prescribed form within the stipulated period, as required under section 44AB - held that - If this benevolency is going to be delivered for all the time to come, what is the sanctity of section 271B remaining in the statute book? The law enacted by the Parliament must be respected and must be followed. If the Act says that penalty is leviable in certain circumstances, penalty must be levied unless the victim shows that sufficient reasons were prevalent to justify the omission caused. Even though evidences cannot be produced in all cases, the explanations offered by an assessee must be plausible and convincing and answerable to the reasoning of a man of ordinary prudence. We are not expecting scientific reasons with mathematical precisions. We are expecting worldly but convincing reasons. - is a fit case to levy penalty under section 271B.

Summary

Issues:
Penalty under section 271B for delay in filing audit report under section 44AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the penalty order passed by the assessing authority under section 271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the relevant assessment year 2006-07. The assessing authority issued a notice proposing to levy a penalty due to the failure of the assessee to furnish the audit report along with necessary enclosures within the stipulated period as required under section 44AB. The assessee's explanation for the delay was that the managing partner was held up at a work site in another state, causing the delay in filing the report. However, the assessing authority found the explanation unconvincing, noting that the other partners were available and a qualified chartered accountant was also assisting the firm, making the delay unjustifiable. Consequently, a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh was levied. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) supported the assessing officer's decision to levy the penalty, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.

During the appeal hearing, the chartered accountant representing the assessee argued that the delay was technical in nature, as the audit report and enclosures were made available to the assessing officer before completing the assessment. The managing partner's absence at a work site for a prestigious project was cited as the reason for the delay. The accountant also referenced a previous Tribunal decision to support the appeal. On the other hand, the Commissioner of Income-tax contended that the reasons provided by the assessee were insufficient, suggesting that the delay was due to the firm's callousness rather than genuine reasons. The Commissioner emphasized the availability of communication and logistics to handle such matters even in the managing partner's absence.

The Tribunal considered the arguments presented and found the explanations offered by the assessee unconvincing. Despite the availability of the audit report before completing the assessment, the Tribunal noted that compliance with section 44AB should not be treated as a new provision, given its longstanding existence since 1985-86. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of respecting the law enacted by the Parliament and upholding penalties when sufficient reasons to justify the delay are not provided. In this case, the Tribunal upheld the penalty under section 271B, dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee.