9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 256X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tatutory audit, the tax audit could not have been completed. Statutory auditors are appointed by the Comptroller & Auditor General of India under section 619(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 and they have completed the statutory audit and submitted their audit report dated 27.03.2014. Thereafter, the tax audit has been completed on 15.07.2014 and the revised return was filed on 16.9.2014. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Punjab State Leather Development Corpn. Ltd. [2001 (7) TMI 1275 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] has held that delay in completion of statutory audit was a reasonable cause for non-compliance with section 44AB and it was held that the Tribunal was right in cancelling penalty levied under sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax under the head income from other sources . During the course of assessment proceedings, on perusal of Form No. 3CA, the Assessing Officer noticed that the statutory audit of the assessee was conducted on 15.07.2014 and the assessee has therefore failed to furnish and get his accounts audited and furnished the report on or before 30.09.2013, being the specified due date. In view of the same, penalty proceedings u/s 271B of the Act for failure to get the accounts audited and furnished the audit report before the specified due date was initiated against the assessee company by way of issuance of penalty notice dated 15.03.2016. 3. During the course of penalty proceedings, the assessee company submitted that delay in getting the tax aud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held by the ld CIT(A) that the statutory auditors not agreeing to the audit fees and resultant delay is not a plausible reason. It was held by the ld CIT(A) that efforts should have made in time to get the audit conducted within the stipulated time. The penalty levied by the AO was accordingly confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). 5. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR drawn a reference to the following table:- Statement showing date of Statutory Audit, C AG Audit, Tax Audit FY AY Statutory Audit C AG Audit Tax Audit Date of filing of return/revised return 2010-11 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reasonable cause as envisaged u/s 273B and therefore, the penalty levied u/s 271B be deleted. 5.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the levy of penalty only on the ground that the reasons forwarded by the assessee are not backed by evidence ignoring that all these dates are mentioned in the printed Balance Sheet available on the record of AO. The further observation of Ld. CIT(A) that statutory auditor have not agreed to the audit fees and hence, there is a delay is not the claim of assessee as is evident from the submission extracted at Para 2.2 of the order. Thus, Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the levy of penalty without application of mind. 5.2 The ld AR further placed reliance on the following cases:- * Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and they have completed the statutory audit and submitted their audit report dated 27.03.2014. Thereafter, the tax audit has been completed on 15.07.2014 and the revised return was filed on 16.9.2014. The Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Punjab State Leather Development Corpn. Ltd. [2001] 119 Taxman 258 has held that delay in completion of statutory audit was a reasonable cause for non-compliance with section 44AB and it was held that the Tribunal was right in cancelling penalty levied under section 271B. Respectfully following the same, we are of the view that in the instant case, where there has been a delay in completion of statutory audit, there exist a reasonable cause for the delay in completion and submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
