9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 599X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red Accountant of the assessee, the assessee cannot be penalized - hence penalty imposed by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) needs to be deleted - Decided in favor of assessee. - ITA No. 1075/Kol/2017 - - - Dated:- 6-6-2018 - Shri A. T. Varkey, JM And Dr. A. L. Saini, AM Appellant by : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Respondent by : Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT ORDER Per Dr. A. L. Saini: The captioned appeal filed by the Assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2013-14, is directed against an order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata, in appeal No.372/CIT(A)-6/Kol/2014-15, dated 09.02.2017, which in turn arises out of a penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271B of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tronically. But the assessee had failed to do so. This attracted penal provision u/s 271B of the Act. The Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 271B and in compliance, the assessee has filed a written submission on 29.09.2014 stating that assessee s accounts had been audited as per Form No- 3CB 3CD in due time on 25/09/2013 and the assessee had submitted income tax return in due time, prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act. The assessee submitted that due to Computer sever problem in the income Tax site, the auditor could not upload or furnished Audit report through on line electronically, but the Audit report was submitted by assessee, manually before Income tax authority on 08/10/2013, therefore, the penalty proceeding u/s 271Bshould not be ini ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting that the Chartered Accountant who was working for the assessee, was of the impression that the audit report may be filed manually within the extended period by the CBDT up to 31.10.2013, therefore, he filed tax audit report manually on 08.10.2013. The assessee does not have knowledge about the income tax proceedings, therefore, he has always been depending on the Chartered Accountants/professionals who has committed mistake in filing the tax audit report. 6. The ld. DR for the Revenue did not have much to say but nevertheless he relied on the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271B of the Act. 7. We have heard learned arguments on both sides, perused the material available on records and we proceed to record our vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the tax audit report manually on 08.10.2013, before the due date of filing electronically tax audit report under section 139(1) read with section 44AB of the Act. However, the manually tax audit report should have been submitted by the assessee on or before 30.09.2010 but the assessee filed it within the extended period by CBDT up to 31.10.2013. During the course of hearing, we are told by the counsel for the assessee that the assessee`s Chartered Accountant, filed the tax audit report manually on 08.10.2013 with the impression that extended period of filing tax audit report electronically would be applicable to file the tax audit report manually as well. We also note that this was the first year where the CBDT announced to file the tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 12.of the l. T Rules for the Assessment Year 2073-14 as under (a) The assessee, who are presently finding it difficult to upload the prescribed Reports of Audit (as referred to above) in the system electronically may also furnish the same manually before the jurisdictional Assessing Officer within the prescribed due date. (b) The said Report of Audit should however be furnished electronically on or before 31.10.2013 . From the plain reading of the Circular of CBDT, it is understood that CBDT has extended time of uploading of audit report to 31.10.2013. Taking note of the extended period of one month, the Chartered Accountant, though accounts were audited on 25.09.2013, filed it manually on 0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... will be justified in refusing to impose penalty, when there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act or where the breach flows from a bona fide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute. Those in charge of the affairs of the company in failing to register the company as a dealer acted in the honest and genuine belief that the company was not a dealer. Granting that they erred, no case for imposing penalty was made out. 10. We also rely on the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Jaipur in the case of Smt. Raj Kumari Bafna in ITA No.837/JP/2016 wherein the Coordinate Bench has taken the same view. Considering the above facts and position in law, we are of the view tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
