KEWALCHAND NAVARATHANMAL,GUDIYATTAM CHENNAI vs. ASSENSSING OFFICER, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 804/CHNY/2023Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 August 2023AY 2017-182 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to allow the assessee to substantiate its case with requisite details. The CIT(A) was directed to re-adjudicate the issue based on the assessee's submissions.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against a penalty levied under Section 271B for failing to comply with Section 44AB, which requires a tax audit. The assessee claimed it was the first year of tax audit and there was a delay in appointing an auditor, but this was not accepted.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271B was rightly levied for non-compliance with Section 44AB, and if the assessee provided sufficient reasons for the non-compliance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271B,Section 44AB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JM & 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) 2017-18 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 02-03- 2023 confirming penalty u/s 271B for Rs.1.50 Lacs. The impugned penalty has been levied by Ld. AO vide order dated 22-02-2022.

2.

The registry has noted a delay of 70 days in the appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by Ld. AR on the strength of condonation petition. Though Ld. Sr. DR opposed the condonation, the bench deems it fit to condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits 3. The impugned penalty stem from the facts that the assessee failed to comply with the provisions of Sec. 44AB. Before Ld. AO, the assessee submitted that this was the first year of Tax Audit and there was delay in appointing the auditor. However, the plea was rejected. The penalty was confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) on the ground that the assessee did not submit any supporting document to establish the date when the books were actually audited. The assessee could not show any reason for non- compliance. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.

4.

After perusal of case records and considering the impugned order, we deem it fit to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to the assessee to substantiate its case by filing the requisite details. The ld. CIT(A) shall re-adjudicate the issue in the light of assessee’s submissions.

5.

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 28th August, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (V. DURGA RAO) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) �ाियक सद /JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखासद / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे4ई Chennai; िदनांक Dated : 28-08-2023 DS आदेशकीUितिलिपअ%ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. !"थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु=/CIT 4. िवभागीय!ितिनिध/DR 5. गाडBफाईल/GF

More judgments on Section 271B

All 1,993 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →