SUSHILKUMAR KARUNAKARAN MARANAYIL,TRIPUNITHURA vs. ITO,CORPORATE WARD 2(1), KOCHI

ITA 946/COCH/2025Status: HeardITAT Cochin11 August 2026AY 2015-165 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had reasonable cause for not furnishing the audit report within the prescribed time, citing the High Court's order which acknowledged technical glitches. Therefore, the penalty under section 271B could not have been levied.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a non-filer, was issued a notice under section 148 for large cash deposits. While the return was eventually accepted, a penalty was levied under section 271B for not furnishing the tax audit report by the due date of September 30, 2015. The assessee claimed technical glitches on the e-filing portal as the reason for the delay.

What were the issues?

Whether technical glitches on the e-filing portal constitute reasonable cause for delayed furnishing of a tax audit report, thereby vitiating a penalty under Section 271B.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271B,Section 148,Section 44AB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

For Appellant: Adv. Thomson T Emmanuel
For Respondent: Ms. Neethu S, Snr DR

Heard together (2 matters)

S.A. No. 108/Coch/2025
ITA No. 946/Coch/2025

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT

1.

The assessee, Mr. Sushil Kumar, has filed Stay Petition No. 108/Cochin/2025 for assessment year 2015–16, seeking stay of the demand of ₹150,000 arising from the penalty order passed under section 271B of the Income Tax Act by the learned Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT(A). Having considered the issue raised in the stay petition and at the request of both parties, the appeal was taken up for hearing.

2.

Briefly stated, the assessee was a non-filer. Information available with the Income Tax Department showed that he had deposited

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 271B

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →