9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 1069 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271B - delayed filing of audit report u/s 44AB - HELD THAT - As submitted that the assessee was unable to file the ROI along with tax audit report within the date stipulated in the notice u/s 148 due to Covid pandemic lock down and income tax portal was under maintenance, and the assessee has filed the tax audit report u/s 44AB during the course of assessment proceedings, which was also considered by the AO before concluding the assessment. Thus, when the Tax Audit Report was made available to the AO before completion of assessment proceedings, then for venial technical breach without any mala fide intention of the assessee, the penalty cannot be levied u/s 271B. Respectfully following the above decision of case of Balaji Logistics v. ACIT 2022 (9) TMI 1432 - ITAT CHENNAI it is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271B and penalty levied u/s 271B stands deleted - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues involved:
The judgment involves penalty proceedings under section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for delayed filing of audit report under section 44AB of the Act for assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17. For Assessment Year 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17: The assessee had made cash deposits into its bank account during the assessment year 2013-14, and the return of income was not filed within the stipulated time after a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. The penalty was initiated under section 271B for delayed filing of the tax audit report under section 44AB. The Assessing Officer levied penalties for each year, which were confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee argued that due to the Covid pandemic lockdown and maintenance issues with the income tax portal, they were unable to file the return of income along with the tax audit report within the due date specified in the notice under section 148. The tax audit report was later submitted during the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal held that the penalty cannot be levied for a technical breach without any mala fide intention, especially when the Tax Audit Report was made available to the Assessing Officer before the completion of assessment proceedings. Precedent and Decision: The Tribunal referred to a similar case, Balaji Logistics v. ACIT, where it was observed that if the Tax Audit Report was made available to the Assessing Officer before the completion of assessment proceedings, a penalty cannot be levied for a technical breach without any mala fide intention. The Tribunal followed this decision and deleted the penalty levied under section 271B of the Act for the assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, and the penalty was directed to be deleted based on the reasoning provided in the precedent case. Conclusion: The Tribunal found that the reasons given by the assessee for the delay in filing the tax audit report within the due date were valid, and there was no mala fide intention. Therefore, it was deemed not a fit case for the levy of penalty under section 271B of the Act. As a result, the penalties for all the assessment years under appeal were deleted, and the appeals filed by the assessee were allowed. This summary provides a detailed overview of the judgment, including the issues involved, the facts of the case, arguments presented, precedent referenced, and the final decision rendered by the Tribunal.
|
