BASHIR USMAN KARBHARI,KARAD vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL CIRCLE, 2(1), PUNE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the audit report due to suffering from Swine flu. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271B should be deleted as per the provisions of Section 273B.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed his return of income but failed to submit the audit report before the due date as required by Section 139(1). Consequently, the Assessing Officer imposed a penalty under Section 271B.
What were the issues?
Whether a penalty under Section 271B is leviable when there is a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the audit report.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH, ‘A’ PUNE
Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL & SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI
आदेश / ORDER
PER R.S. SYAL, VP :
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A), Pune 12 on 13-01-2023 in relation to the assessment year 2017-18.
The only issue raised in this appeal is against the confirmation of penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- imposed by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s.271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’).
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed his e-return on 28-03-2018 declaring total income at Rs.13,49,120/-. Since the accounts were required to be audited and the assessee failed to submit the audit report before the due date u/s.139(1), the AO imposed penalty u/s.271B amounting to Rs.1,50,000/-. Such penalty came to be affirmed in the first appeal, against which the assessee has approached the Tribunal.
We have heard the rival submissions and gone through the relevant material on record. It is evident from the penalty order passed by the AO u/s.271B that the assessee failed to get the accounts audited, as he was suffering from Swine flu during that period and doctor had advised to take rest. This assertion has been recorded in the penalty order, which has not been controverted by the AO. Though, admittedly, there is a delay in getting the accounted audited in terms of section 44AB and filing the audit report within the time allowed u/s 139(1) of the Act, which otherwise requires imposition of penalty u/s.271B, but the prescription of section 273B applies as per which if there exists a reasonable and sufficient cause for non-compliance, then the penalty should not be imposed. We are satisfied with the cause pleaded by the assessee before the authorities below, being, the medical condition, for failure to file the audit report in time. We, therefore, order to delete the penalty.
In the result, the appeal is allowed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 01st May, 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
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sukant Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA And 6 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S New Sana Brick Field vs. Union Of INDIA And 4 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Vinay Singh vs. Union Of INDIAAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Aaradhyam Infrabuilders PVT LTD vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026