SOHANAA INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-24(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5797/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 December 2022AY 2010-113 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found no infirmity in the orders of the lower authorities. Since the assessee could not provide any material to controvert the findings, the penalty was upheld.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to furnish the tax audit report within the prescribed time. The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty under Section 271B, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee appealed to the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271B is leviable for failure to furnish the tax audit report within the due date, and if the subsequent furnishing during assessment proceedings can be a valid justification.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 44AB,Section 271B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH : G : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA & SHRI C.M. GARG

For Respondent: Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 06.12.2022Pronounced: 12.12.2022

ORDER

PER C.M. GARG, JM:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 14.06.2019 of the CIT(A)-8, New Delhi, relating to Assessment Year 2010-11, confirming the penalty imposed u/s 271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’).

2.

The grounds raised

by the assessee read as under:- “1. That Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-8 erred in dismissing appeal of appellant company in the order passed by Ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 24(1) Delhi u/s 271B of the I.T Act, 1961.

2. That Ld. CIT (Appeal) grossly erred both in law and on facts sustaining the penalty u/s 271B amounting to Rs.56,257/-.

3. That Ld. CIT (Appeal) grossly erred to consider the fact that tax audit report under Form 3CA and 3CD was duly furnished during the course of assessment proceedings.

4. That Ld. CIT (Appeal) grossly erred to interpret the requirement of the section 44AB of the act read with rule 12(2) of income tax rules in regard of obtaining tax audit report. 5. That the order passed by the Ld. CIT (Appeal)-8 New Delhi, being erroneous in law and on facts deserved to be deleted. 6. The appellant craves leave to add or amend any ground of appeal.”

3.

Before us, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment application has been filed. Since we found that this issue can be decided even in the absence of the representation from the assessee, we proceeded to decide the appeal after hearing the ld. DR.

4.

In this case, penalty proceedings were initiated for not complying with the requirement of provisions of section 44AB of the Act by way of issue of notice dated 29.12.2017. The AO held that it was a fit case for imposition of penalty for not furnishing the audit report and penalty of Rs.56,257/- was imposed for default u/s 271B vide penalty order dated 28.06.2018.

5. Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A) who has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee observing as under:- “4. DECISION : The AO has levied the penalty on account of failure of the assessee in getting its accounts audited as specified u/s 44AB. During the course of appellate proceedings, the AR of the appellant has contended that the audit report dtd 28.09.2010 was furnished vide letter dtd 04.10.2017 ( while the due date of filing of return was 30.09.2010). The AR has contended that there is no violation of section 44AB and hence there is no question of penalty u/s 271B.

The contentions of the AR have been considered and the order of the AO has also been perused. It is seen from the order of the AO para 5 that it is an undenied fact that neither the audit report was not furnished in time nor the return of income was filed in time. As per AO assessee had not been able to provide any justification for not furnishing the audit report. Under these circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the AO and therefore, the penalty of Rs.56,257/- levied by the AO is hereby confirmed.

5.

In the result, appeal is dismissed. “

6.

Before us the assessee could not place any material to controvert the findings of the authorities below. Therefore, we find no infirmity, perversity or any other valid reason to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A).

More judgments on Section 44AB

All 2,486 judgments and leading authorities on Section 44AB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →