VADAPALANI MURUGAN INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,TIRUVALLUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CORPORATE WARD 3(3) CHE, CHENNAI

PER PADMAVATHY.S, A.M: This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, (in short "CIT(A)") passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") dated 10.12.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2021-22.

ITA No.1287/Chny/2026 Vadapalani Murugan Industries Pvt. Ltd. :- 2 -: the audit report within the due date specified. The assessee submitted that the operations of the company was severely affected due to covid pandemic and the family of the accountant incharge of tax matters was also affected due to which he could not attend office properly. The assessee further submitted that the due date for filing the audit report was extended till 15.01.2022 and the assessee filed the audit report on 15.03.2022 well before filing the return of income on 29.03.2022. The assessee accordingly submitted that there is a reasonable cause for not filing the audit report and hence no penalty u/s. 271B of the Act is warranted. The A.O did not accept the submissions and levied a penalty of Rs.1,50,000/-stating that there is no sufficient cause. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee made similar submissions before the CIT(A) however the CIT(A) confirmed the penalty stating that the decision relied on by the assessee is distinguishable. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A).

ITA No.1287/Chny/2026 Vadapalani Murugan Industries Pvt. Ltd. :- 3 -: Balaji Logistics vs. ACIT [2023] 147 taxmann.com 607 (Chennai-Trib.) was considered an identical issue where it has been held that: “6. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. It is an admitted fact that although the assessee has filed Tax Audit Report in Form 3CB as required u/s.44AB of the Act, beyond due date specified u/s.139(1) of the Act, but such Tax Audit Report was made available to the AO before completion of assessment proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Act, on 22.11.2017. It is evident from the fact that the assessee has obtained Tax Audit Report from an Accountant on 28.03.2016 and furnished before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. Therefore, we are of the considered view that when the Tax Audit Report was made available to the AO before completion of assessment proceedings, then for venial technical breach without any mala fide intention, penalty cannot be levied u/s.271B of the Act. Further, a similar issue has been considered by the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s.T P D 101 Uthangarai Milk Producers Co-operative Society Ltd.(supra), where on identical set of facts, penalty levied u/s.271B of the Act, has been deleted. The relevant findings of the Tribunal are as under:

“…7. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The assessee supposed to have been filed audit report as required u/s.44AB of the Act, on or before 31.10.2015. However, such audit report has been filed on 05.03.2016, which is before the date of completion of assessment proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Act. In other words, although the assessee has filed tax audit report beyond the stipulated period, but such tax audit report was made available to the AO before he completes assessment proceedings. The assessee has given reasons for delay in filing tax audit report. As per which, the audit of accounts of society done by the Dept. of Cooperative Audit, could not be completed on or before 31.10.2015 and said delay was not in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, there is a reasonable cause for not filing the tax audit report within prescribed time limit ad thus, penalty cannot be levied. We find merits in the submission of the assessee for the simple reason that non-filing of audit report within the due date is a venial technical breach without any mala fide intention on the part of the assessee. Because, completion of audit of books of accounts of the society is under the control of Dept. of Cooperative Audit and thus, unless the Dept. of Cooperative Audit completes audit, the assessee cannot file return of income along with tax audit report. Therefore, we are of the considered view that reasons given by the assessee for not filing tax audit report prescribed u/s.44AB of the Act, is neither intention nor any mala fide intention, but it is venial technical breach and for this reason, penalty u/s.271B of the Act, cannot be levied. This principle is supported by the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of P.Senthil Kumar v. PCIT reported in 416 ITR 336, where an identical issue had been considered by the Court and held that for venial technical breach without any mala fide intention, penalty cannot be levied. The ITAT Cochin Bench in ITA No.411/Cochin/2018 vide order dated 05.02.2019 had held that once audit

ITA No.1287/Chny/2026 Vadapalani Murugan Industries Pvt. Ltd. :- 4 -: report has been made available before the AO, when the assessment proceedings were completed, then, there is no reason for levy of penalty. 8. In this view of the matter and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that reasons given by the assessee for not filing tax audit report within due date comes under reasonable cause as provided u/s.271B of the Act, and thus, the AO is erred in levying penalty u/s.271B of the Act. Hence, we direct the AO to delete penalty levied u/s.271B of Act.”…. 7. In this view of the matter and by following the decision of the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s.T P D 101 Uthangarai Milk Producers Co-operative Society Ltd.(supra), we direct the AO to delete penalty levied u/s.271B of the Act. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.” 4. The ratio laid down by the Coordinate Bench in the above case when the audit report made available to the A.O before the completion of assessment proceedings then for the venial technical breach without any malafide intention penalty cannot be levied u/s. 271B of the Act. Considering that the facts in assessee's case are identical, we are of the view that the said ratio laid down by the Coordinate Bench is applicable in assessee's case also. Accordingly, we hold that a levy of penalty u/s. 271B of the Act in the present case is not warranted and we direct the A.O to delete the same.

Sd/- Sd/- (मनु कुमार िग"र) (पदमावती यस) (Manu Kumar Giri) (Padmavathy.S) लेखा सद�य लेखा सद�य सद�य /Accountant Member सद�य �याियक �याियक सद�य �याियक �याियक सद�य सद�य / Judicial Member सद�य लेखा लेखा चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 19th June, 2026. EDN, Sr. P.S

ITA No.1287/Chny/2026 Vadapalani Murugan Industries Pvt. Ltd. :- 5 -: आदेश क� �ितिल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु!/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड� फाईल/GF