ABDUL SALAM SATHIK BATCHA,GOBICHETTYOALAYAM vs. ITO,WARD-2(1), ERODE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 748/CHNY/2023Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 July 2023AY 2017-182 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal deleted the penalty, following a previous decision where it was held that penalty under Section 271B was not leviable on similar facts. The Tax Audit Report was filed along with the return of income and during assessment proceedings.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed the Tax Audit Report beyond the due date prescribed under Section 44AB. The Assessing Officer levied a penalty under Section 271B, which was confirmed by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271B is leviable when the Tax Audit Report is filed late but along with the return of income and during assessment proceedings.

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, “B” 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. Aggrieved by confirmation of penalty u/s 271B for Rs.1.5 Lacs for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The impugned order has been passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] on 14-03-2023 in the matter of impugned penalty levied by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 271B of the Act vide order dated 24-06-2021.

2.

The Registry has noted the delay of 37 days in the appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by the assessee on the strength of affidavit of the assessee. The Ld. DR opposed the condonation of delay. However, keeping in view the period of delay and contents of the affidavit, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.

3.

The impugned penalty stem from the fact that the assessee filed Tax Audit Report on 20.03.2018 which was beyond due date as prescribed u/s 44AB. Invoking the provisions of Sec.271B, Ld. AO levied penalty of Rs.1.50 Lacs which was confirmed by Ld. CIT(A). Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 4. From the facts, it emerges that the copy of Tax Audit Report was filed along with return of income and the same was also furnished during the course of assessment proceedings. On similar facts, the decision of this Tribunal in Shri Ramunaicker Raja vs. ACIT (ITA No. 603/Chny/2022 dated 15-02-2023) supports the case of the assessee wherein it was held that it is not a fit case for levy of penalty. Following the same, we delete the impugned penalty. 5. The appeal stand allowed. Order pronounced on 25th July, 2023 Sd/- Sd/- (V. DURGA RAO) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) �ाियक सद!/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखासद! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे5ई Chennai; िदनांक Dated : 25-07-2023 DS आदेशकीUितिलिपअ&ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. !"थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु>/CIT 4. िवभागीय!ितिनिध/DR 5. गाडCफाईल/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 →