DHANAPAL GIRIDHARAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 9(3), CHENNAI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the tax audit report, as the accounts were audited within the prescribed time and the assessee believed the auditor had uploaded the report. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271B is deleted.
What were the facts?
The assessee failed to file the tax audit report under Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act within the due date for Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2015-16. The Assessing Officer levied penalty under Section 271B, which was confirmed by the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether penalty under Section 271B is leviable for delayed filing of tax audit report when there was a reasonable cause for the delay.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ �ायपीठ, चे�ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी वी दुगा� राव �ाियक सद� एवं �ी जी. मंजुनाथा, लेखा सद� के सम� Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 2546 & 2547/Chny/2018 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Years:2013-14 & 2015-16 Shri Dhanapal Giridharan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer No. 29, Thirumalaiappan Street, Non Corporate Ward 9(3) Purasawalkam, Chennai 600 007. Chennai 600 034. [PAN:AHYPG9179R] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : None ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 04.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 26.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Both the appeals filed by the assessee are directed against different orders of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai, both dated 29.06.2018 relevant to the assessment years 2013-14 and 2015-16 respectively challenging confirmation of penalty levied under section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short].
Both the appeals filed by the assessee are delayed by three days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee filed petitions for condonation of delay in filing the appeals in the form of an affidavit by stating that the delay was neither wilful not wanton and pleaded for condoning the delay, against which, the ld. DR has not raised any serious objection. Since the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause, the delays in filing the appeals before the Tribunal are condoned and admitted the appeals for adjudication.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed his return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 and 2015-16 electronically on 23.09.2013 and 24.10.2015 with turnover of ₹.6,81,68,267/- and ₹.9,51,31,568/- respectively being more than ₹.1 crore. The assessee is, thus, covered by the provisions of section 44AB of the Act and required to file the return of income along with audit report of accounts in 3CB Form on or before the due date of filing of return under section 139(1) of the Act. Since the assessee has failed to comply with the provisions of section 44AB of the Act, the Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271B of the Act for both the assessment years. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty levied under section 271B of the Act for both the assessment years.
On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite various opportunities afforded from 16.01.2019. Hence, we proceed to decide the appeals on merits after hearing the ld. DR.
We have heard the ld. DR, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. In this case, since the assessee has not filed the audit report of accounts in 3CB Form on or before the due date under section 139(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer show-caused the assessee as to why penalty under section 271B of the act should not be levied for failure to comply with the provisions of section 44AB of the Act. In reply to the show-cause notice, it was the submissions of the assessee that his accounts were audited by the auditor within the prescribed time and copy was furnished before the Assessing Officer. He further states that the auditor informed him that he had been uploading the report in the income tax website every year and states that due to this, he was under bonafide belief that the auditor had been uploading the tax audit report. However, the Assessing Officer levied the penalty under section 271B of the Act. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty levied under section 271B of the Act for both the assessment years.
The case of the Department is that the assessee has not furnished the tax audit report on or before the due date of filing of return of income under section 139(1) of the Act and therefore, levy of penalty under section 271B of the Act is warranted. The case of the assessee is that the assessee has got audited his accounts by the auditor within the prescribed time and copies were also furnished before the Assessing Officer. On perusal of the orders of authorities below, we find that it is the case of the assessee that tax audit report under section 44AB of the Act was not filed before the due date of filing the same, but it was filed belatedly. Moreover, it is also not the case of the assessee that the accounts were not audited by the auditor within the prescribed time. The tax audit report was obtained well within the stipulated due date apart from mentioning of the same in the returns filed by the assessee. Considering the explanations that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause for the delay in filing the tax audit report under section 44AB of the Act, we are of the considered opinion that the penalty levied under section 271B of the Act is liable to be deleted. Accordingly, the penalty levied of ₹.1,50,000/- under section 271B of the Act is deleted for both the assessment years.
In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced on the 26th August, 2022 in Chennai.
More judgments on Section 44AB
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Subhash Chand Saini, Jaipur vs ITO Ward, Behror, BherorITA 36/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Shobha Sudamrao Tagad, Ahmednagar vs ITO WD-1, AhmednagarITA 311/PUN/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
- Income Tax Officer, WD-3(3), Pmt Building vs Oring Industrial Networki Ng Private…ITA 181/PUN/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- ITO, Lower Parel vs Shreeji Paper Corporation, Dn NagarITA 2966/MUM/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Its Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026