VAIKUNTHAM PACCS LTD,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD-1(7), SALEM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 378/CHNY/2023Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 April 2023AY 2016-172 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the assessee's claim regarding turnover. If the turnover is indeed below the prescribed limit, the penalty would not be sustainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee is in appeal against a penalty levied under Section 271B for failure to get accounts audited. The assessee claims its turnover was below the prescribed limit, making the audit unnecessary.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271B is sustainable when the assessee's turnover is below the threshold requiring an audit under Section 44AB.

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 MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM, & HON’BLE SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS

आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aggrieved by confirmation of penalty u/s 271B for Rs.47,866/- for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17, 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. AO vide order dated 19.02.2020. The penalty has been levied on the allegation that the assessee failed to get its accounts audited u/s 44AB.

1.

2 - 2. The Ld. AR, at the outset, submitted that the turnover of the assessee is below prescribed limit of Rs.1 Crore and therefore, no such audit was required. In such a case, the impugned penalty would have no legs to stand. The Ld. Sr. DR concurred with the same but submitted that the fact of turnover could be verified by Ld. AO.

3.

Accepting the same, we direct Ld. AO to verify the claim of Ld. AR. If turnover is below prescribed limit, the impugned penalty would not be sustainable. No other point has been urged before us.

4.

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 26th April, 2023.

More judgments on Section 271B

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →