MANIPILLAI SARAVANAN,SALEM vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-1, SALEM
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that while the Tax Audit Report was obtained before the extended due date, there was only a delay in uploading it. Therefore, it was not a fit case for levying the penalty under Section 271B.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed their Tax Audit Report late, uploading it on March 29, 2016, instead of the stipulated date of September 30, 2015. The Assessing Officer levied a penalty of Rs. 1.50 Lacs under Section 271B for this delay.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was whether a penalty under Section 271B was leviable for the delay in uploading the Tax Audit Report, even if the audit was completed before the due date.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 19-01- 2023 confirming penalty u/s 271B for Rs.1.50 Lacs. The impugned penalty has been levied by Ld. AO vide order dated 17-02-2022. At the time of hearing, none appeared for assessee. The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that penalty was mandatory in nature and therefore, the impugned order may be confirmed. Having considered material on record, the appeal is disposed-off as under. The registry has noted delay of 29 days in the appeal. Considering the period of delay, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits.
The impugned penalty stem from the facts that the assessee was assessed u/s 143(3) accepting the returned income of Rs.11.83 Lacs. However, it was noted that the stipulated date for filing of return of income along with Tax Audit Report was 30-09-2015. However, the assessee uploaded Tax Audit Report dated 30-10-2015 only on 29-03- 2016. Therefore, impugned penalty of Rs.1.50 Lacs u/s 271B was levied by Ld.AO. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same against which the assessee is in further appeal before us.
The undisputed fact that emerges is that the extended due date for filing Tax Audit Report for this year was 31-10-2015. The assessee has got the accounts audited before that date. There is delay only in uploading of the same. Therefore, in our considered opinion, this is not a fit case for levy of impugned penalty. By deleting the impugned penalty, we allow the appeal.
The appeal stand allowed. Order pronounced on 25th September, 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
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026