THE GOLD KING EXPORTS,TIRUPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), TIRUPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3492/CHNY/2018Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 November 2019AY 2015-164 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the penalty levied for a minor breach was unwarranted, considering the unavoidable circumstances. The audit was concluded on time, and the accounts were not questioned. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to submit the audit report required under Section 44AB within the statutory time limit. The audit report was signed on 31.10.2015, but the return of income along with the audit report was filed on 14.10.2016. The assessee cited unavoidable circumstances, including an accountant's departure and a partner's illness, as reasons for the delay.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271B is leviable for delayed filing of the audit report due to unavoidable circumstances. Whether the reasons provided by the assessee constitute a reasonable cause for the delay.

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, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN

Hearing: 22.08.2019Pronounced: 08.11.2019

आयकर अपील सं./ Year: 2015-16 M/s. The Gold King Exports, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.1, Vaikkal Thottam, Ward – 2(1), Palladam Road, Tirupur. Tirupur – 641 604. PAN: AABFT6732B (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri Arjunraj, CA ��यथ� क� ओर से /Respondent by : Shri G.D. Jayanthi Angayarkanni, JCIT सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 22.08.2019 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement : 08.11.2019 आदेश / O R D E R PER SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

The Assessee filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Coimbatore in Appeal No.295/17-18 dated 28.11.2018 for the assessment year 2015-16 in which the ld.CIT(A) sustained the penalty levied U/s.271B of the Act.

2 -: 2. M/s. The Gold King Exports, the assessee filed its return for the assessment year 2015-16 on 14.102.106 admitting a loss of Rs.67,97,660/-. On verification, the Assessing Officer found that the turnover reported by the assessee was at Rs.2,54,66,791/-. However, the assessee failed to submit audit report as required U/s.44AB within the statutory time allowed i.e., 30.09.2015 but filed it on 14.10.2016 only. Since, there was a failure on the part of the assessee, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings U/s.271B and levied the penalty. Aggrieved against that order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) sustained the levy of penalty. Against that order, the assessee filed this appeal.

3.

The ld.AR pleaded that the audit report was signed on 31.10.2015. The assessee filed voluntarily the return of income admitting a loss of Rs.67,97,660/- on 14.10.2016 along with audit report U/s.44AB. The delay in filing was because of the mistake of the accountant who was entrusted with the work of taking care of the tax matters who has left service without due information. The partner Mrs. Srilatha was also suffering from chicken kuniya fever due to which she was immobilized even after recover from fever. The company has incurred huge loss of Rs.17,04,144/- in the assessment year 2014-15

3 -: and during the year the loss of Rs.67,97,660/-. Because of continuous losses year after year there was also misunderstanding among the partners. No notice U/s.142(1) or 143(2) or 148 was issued. The Assessing Officer issued the show cause notice for levy of penalty, for the reason that the assessee failed to get its accounts audited within the specified date, i.e., however he levied the penalty for not submitting the audit report within time. The ld.CIT(A) without appreciating the facts and circumstances sustained the levy of penalty and hence pleaded to allow the appeal.

4.

Per contra, the ld.DR submitted that the assessee without reasonable cause failed to comply with the provisions of the Act and hence, the levy made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the lower authorities may be upheld.

5.

We heard the rival submissions and gone through the relevant material. Due to unavoidable circumstances, the assessee filed its return belatedly on 14.10.2016 along with audit report dated 31.10.2015. It is not the case of the Assessing Officer that the audit was not concluded as on 31.10.2015 nor the accounts of the assessee was not reliable etc. In the facts and circumstances, we are of the 4 -: view that the levy of penalty for a venial breach is unwarranted and hence we delete the impugned penalty and allow the assessee’s appeal.

6.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed.

Order pronounced in the Court on 8th November, 2019 in Chennai.

More judgments on Section 44AB

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →