JAYARAJ CHARLES,PUDUKOTTAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,-WARD-1, PUDUKOTTAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 434/CHNY/2023Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2023AY 2017-183 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 held that substantial compliance of law was made by the assessee as the Tax Audit Report was obtained within the extended time and furnished during assessment proceedings. Therefore, the penalty was not fit for levy.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to upload the Tax Audit Report in Form No.3CB and 3CD within the prescribed time for AY 2017-18. The audit report was obtained within the extended time and filed along with the income tax return on 17-03-2018.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271B is leviable for delayed uploading of Tax Audit Report when substantial compliance was made by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271B,Section 139(1),Section 139(4)

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

माननीय +ी वी. दुगा1 राव, �ाियक सद2 एवं माननीय +ी मनोज कुमार अ7वाल ,लेखा सद2 के सम9। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ (िनधा1रणवष1 / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Jayaraj Charles ITO बनाम/ 250/1, Begum Road Nizam Colony Ward-1, Vs. A.M.A Nagar, Pudukottai-622 001. Pudukottai. �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.ADLPC-3076-A (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : ("#थ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Ms. N.V.Lakshmi (Advocate) – Ld. AR "#थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld.DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 29-05-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 29-05-2023 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aggrieved by confirmation of penalty u/s 271B for Rs.1,50,000/- 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 07-02-2023 in the matter of impugned penalty levied by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 271B of the Act vide order dated 02-11-2021. In the penalty order, the penalty has been levied on the allegation that the assessee failed to upload Tax Audit Report in Form No.3CB and 3CD within prescribed time. As per facts available on record, the assessee filed audit report u/s 44AB as well as its Income Tax Return on 17-03-2018. Considering the provisions of Sec. 139(1) / 139(4), the return was treated as non-est and an invalid return. The extended due date for furnishing of Tax Audit Report was 07-11-2017 as per press release dated 31-10-2017.The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same against which the assessee is in further appeal before us.

2.

From para-3 of the assessment order dated 17-12-2019, it emerges that the Tax Audit has been completed in assessee’s case on 07-11- 2017 and a copy of the same was also furnished by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings. The same has apparently been uploaded by the assessee on 17-03-2018 along with the return of income. This fact has also been noted by Ld. AO in para-3 of penalty order dated 02-11-2021. However, Ld. AO has treated the return as non- est and imposed impugned penalty on the assessee on the reasoning that the return was not appearing on the e-filing portal.

3.

From the stated facts, it could be seen that substantial compliance of law was made by the assessee and Tax Audit Report was obtained within the extended time limit. The copy of the same was also furnished by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings. It is another fact that the return has been held to be non-est only because the same was not appearing on the e-filing portal possibly because the assessee did not verify the ITR-V. Nevertheless, it is not a fit case for levy of impugned penalty considering the fact that substantial compliance of law was made by the assessee. 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. Therefore, we delete the impugned penalty.

4.

The appeal stand allowed.

More judgments on Section 271B

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →