AMBASAMUDRAM SARVODAYA SANGH,TIRUNELVELIANDHI NAGAR, VEERAVANALLUR vs. UTO, EXEMPTION WARD, TIRUNELVELI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee could not file the audit report due to technical glitches and that the report was furnished during assessment proceedings and accepted. Therefore, it was not a fit case for penalty.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a society, failed to file its tax audit report within the stipulated time. The report was eventually filed during the assessment proceedings, and the returned income was accepted by the revenue.
What were the issues?
Whether a penalty under Section 271B is leviable for failure to file a tax audit report within the stipulated time when the delay was due to technical glitches and the report was accepted during assessment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)
Aggrieved by confirmation of penalty u/s 271B for Rs.1.50 Lacs vide impugned order dated 14.08.2023, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The said penalty is levied for failure to get accounts audited and filing of Tax Report Audit u/s 44AB within stipulated time.
The Ld. AR assailed impugned penalty on the ground that Audit Report was duly furnished during assessment proceedings and returned income was accepted by revenue. The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the assessee could not demonstrate any reasonable cause for default.
Having heard rival submissions, our adjudication would be as under. The assessee is a society registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860.
The impugned penalty stem from the fact that the assessee was assessed u/s 144 on 23-03-2022. Since the assessee defaulted in uploading the Tax Audit Report within stipulated period, Ld. AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271B. The assessee submitted that portal was not ready to accept the return of income as well as tax audit report at the relevant point of time. The same were duly furnished on 28-02-2022 during the course of assessment proceedings. However, Ld. AO rejected the same and levied impugned penalty vide order dated 26-09-2022. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same on the ground that there was no reasonable cause for default. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.
From the fact, it would emerge that the assessee is a society registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860. The assessee did not file return of income. However, the case was reopened and the assessee was asked to file return of income before 27-07-2021. The assessee could not file Audit Report due to technical glitches only which is evident from assessee’s letter dated 16-08-2021 as written to Ld. AO during the course of assessment proceedings. Finally, the same was furnished during assessment proceedings and the same was accepted. Considering all these facts, we are of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case for levy of penalty. Therefore, we delete the same.
The appeal stand allowed.
Order pronounced in open court on 28th November, 2023.
More judgments on Section 271B
- Devayatbhai Kalotara, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, RajkotITA 679/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Waghire College Saswad, Pune vs ITO, Ward 14(5), PuneITA 2867/PUN/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Waghire College Saswad, Pune vs ITO, Ward 14(5), PuneITA 2866/PUN/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Waghire College Saswad, Pune vs ITO, Ward 14(5), PuneITA 2865/PUN/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Waghire College Saswad, Pune vs ITO, Ward 14(5), PuneITA 2864/PUN/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026