SRI PRAYAG YADAV,PASCHIM BURDWAN vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-2, ASANSOL
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that there was a reasonable cause for the delay in getting the accounts audited, considering it was the assessee's first time under Section 44AB and he was not conversant with the provisions. Therefore, the penalty levied was not justified.
What were the facts?
The assessee failed to get his accounts audited before the specified date as required by Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act. He later got the accounts audited before filing the return and sought to explain the delay due to a heart problem and lack of awareness of the audit provisions.
What were the issues?
Whether the penalty under Section 271B for delayed audit is leviable when there is a reasonable cause for the delay, especially for a first-time assessee unaware of the provisions.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B”
Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Shri Girish Agrawal, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sri Prayag Yadav....................................................…..............….……….Appellant Gopalpur, G.T. Road (West), Near: Anand Flower Mill, P.O-Asansol-713304. [PAN: AAJPY3616P] vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Asansol…...…..…....................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances by: None appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. CIT-DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : June 28, 2022 Date of pronouncing the order : June 28, 2022
ORDER
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 04.02.2019 of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Asansol [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’]. The assessee in this appeal has agitated against the levy of penalty of Rs.1,31,524/- u/s 271B of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) for not getting his accounts audited before the specified date as laid down u/s 44AB.
No one has put in appearance on behalf of the assessee despite service of notice. A perusal of case file records show that notices have been served to the assessee several times through Registered post and through email to the AR of the assessee but no one has ever put in appearance on behalf of the assessee. It seems that the assessee is no more interested in prosecution of the appeal, therefore, we proceed to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the ld. DR and after going through the records.
On being asked to explain as to why not the penalty be levied for not getting the accounts audited before specified date, the assessee submitted before the lower authorities that due to severe heart problem, the assessee most of the time was confined
Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sri Prayag Yadav to bed and further that this was the first time that the assessee came under the purview of audit u/s 44AB of the Act and that the assessee was not aware about the provisions, therefore, a delay has taken place in getting audit of the accounts done. However, the accounts were got audited before the filing of the return.
Considering the above plea of the assessee on record, since it was the first time that the assessee came under the purview of the provisions of section 44AB for getting his accounts audited and the assessee was not conversant with the above technical provisions and further considering the fact that the assessee had duly got audited its accounts before filing of the return, we are of view that there was a reasonable cause for the assessee for delay in getting accounts audited. In view of this, we do not find it a fit case to levy penalty u/s 271B of the Act and the same is accordingly ordered to be deleted.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed.
Kolkata, the 28th June, 2022.
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 Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026