9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ording the satisfaction by issuing show cause notice. AO, at the time of passing the assessment order, was in possession of the Audit Report which was duly mentioned by him. In section 271B of the Act, the only requirement is to get the accounts of assessee audited or furnish the report of audit as required under section 44AB of the Act. There is no requirement either to file or supply at the time of filing of return of income. The only requirement is to get accounts audited. In the present case, the assessee had filed the proof of furnishing the audit report before Assessing Officer, which had not been disputed by the Assessing Officer in his order. Thus the order of imposing the penalty by CIT(A) s order are without any basis as assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dit Report, ignoring the fact that, the Income tax Website has not admitted the filing due to technical problems and the applicant is not well versed technically to tackle the issues and furnished the Tax Audit Report before the Assessing Officer. The Ld. Assessing Officer ought to have considered the fact, that the Tax Audit Report is available for his consideration during the assessment proceedings and he has not been deprived of the Tax Audit Report." 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that assessee is an individual, who made cash deposits of Rs. 12,47,000/- during the period of demonetization. In this case, as the assessee has not filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18, the case has been selected under non-Filers category in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 961, dated 11.01.2022. 4. Feeling aggrieved with the order of Assessing Officer, assessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of assessee. 5. Feeling aggrieved with the order of ld.CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before me. 6. Before me, ld.AR submitted that assessee had not filed the return of income as the income of the assessee was below the taxable limit. However, on account of cash deposit of Rs. 4 lakhs in a specified bank notes during the demonetization period, the Assessing Officer had issued notice to the Assessing Officer. After receipt of notice from the Assessing Officer, assessee had submitted that due to technical reasons and glitches, the return of income was not filed, however, the assessee had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... failed to record its satisfaction in the assessment or der pertaining to it. There is no whisper in the assessment order regarding the levy of the penalty. When it so then we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The same is hereby sustained along with the reasons mentioned therein." On the basis of the above, it was submitted that once the assessment has been completed and the assessee had paid due taxes and immunity has been granted u/s 271AA(2) of the Act, then penalty u/s 271B should not be imposed. 7. Per contra, the ld. DR for the Revenue has submitted that the penalty u/s 271B can be imposed once it is found that the assessee had failed to maintain the books of accounts. Ld. DR further submitted that assessee had fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he following effect: "…..…. It has been explained by the assessee that the belated return of income could not be filed due to technical issue while uploading the same. He has furnished a copy of Audit Report, copy of VAT turnover ledger and books of account for perusal." 10. In my opinion, once, the assessee has provided the Audit Report to the Assessing Officer at the time of assessment which was though required to be filled by the assessee along with return of income, however the same was subsequently provided to the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. The availability of the audit report or the contents of audit report were not disputed by the authorities below. However, what has been disputed is that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so supported by the reasoning given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. US Technologies International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT wherein at Para 8.1 and 8.2, it was held as under: "8.1. Even otherwise, the words "fails to deduct" occurring in Section 271C(1)(a) cannot be read into "failure to deposit/pay the tax deducted." 8.2 Therefore, on true interpretation of Section 271C, there shall not be any penalty leviable under Section 271C on mere delay in remittance of the TDS after deducting the same by the concerned assessee. As observed herein above, the consequences on nonpayment/belated remittance of the TDS would be under Section 201(1A) and Section 276B of the Act, 1961. 13. Respectfully, following the reasoning given by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
