MD. SALIM QURASI,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD - 23(3), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2436/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 January 2019AY 2013-143 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 assessee committed only a technical breach as the tax audit report was filed before the completion of assessment proceedings. Following the Madras High Court's decision in CIT v. A.N. Arunachalam, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the penalty.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in manufacturing leather goods, had a turnover exceeding the threshold requiring a tax audit. Although the audit was completed before the return filing due date, the report was not attached to the return. The assessee cited the auditor's illness and later his own medical condition as reasons for the delay in filing the report.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271B is leviable for non-filing of tax audit report along with the return of income when it was filed before the completion of assessment proceedings. Whether the reasons provided for the delay constitute a reasonable cause under Section 273B.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 44AB,Section 271B,Section 273B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Sri S.S. Godara & Sri M. Balaganesh

Assessment Year: 2013-14 Md. Salim Qurasi……………….......…………….......................…..……………….…...……..…….............Appellant 127 (83/A), Kazi Para Baidyabati Dist-Hooghly Pin - 712 222 [PAN : AACPQ 2828 G] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-23(3), Hooghly…...................................………………...…...........Respondent Appearances by: Smt. Saswati Mitra Dutta, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Sankar Halder, Addl. CIT D/R. appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : December 27th , 2018 Date of pronouncing the order : January 1st , 2019 ORDER Per Bench :- This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -6, Kolkata, (in short “ld. CIT(A)”), , in appeal no. 375/CIT(A)- 6/Kol/2014-15, dated 24/08/2017, confirming the order levying penalty u/s 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’), levied by the ld. Income Tax Officer, Wd-23(3), Hooghly (in short ‘ld. Assessing Officer ‘), for the Assessment Year 2013-14.

2.

The brief facts of this issue is that the assessee filed his return of income for the Assessment Year 2013-14, on 31/10/2013. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing leather goods. The gross turnover of the assessee was Rs.1,55,11,925/-. Hence the assessee is liable for getting his accounts audited u/s 44AB of the Act. It is an admitted fact that the assessee did not attach tax audit report u/s 44AB of the Act, along with the return of income. The ld. Assessing Officer, accordingly proceeded to levy penalty u/s 271B of the Act for violation of provisions of Section 44AB of the Act, for Rs.77,559/-, being 0.5% of the gross turnover. The assessee had pleaded before the lower authorities that the tax audit was completed on 27/09/2013, by the tax auditor and thereafter, the said tax auditor suddenly fell ill and accordingly the tax audit report could not be filed along with the return of income. Without the tax audit report, the income tax return was electronically uploaded as it was lying with the tax auditor. The Assessment Year: 2013-14 Md. Salim Qurasi assessee also placed on record the medical certificate dt. 03/11/2013, stating that the assessee was sick from 28/09/2013 to 02/11/2013. Accordingly, the tax audit report could not be obtained from the tax auditor for uploading the same along with the return of income. This reason was not found satisfactory by the authorities below. The ld. CIT(A) found that before the ld. Assessing Officer, the assessee had blamed the auditor for not auditing the accounts and before the ld. CIT(A), the blame was taken by the assessee himself on the ground that his medical condition was not fit enough to get the accounts tax audited. The ld. CIT(A) found this divergent stand taken by the assessee before him and before the ld. Assessing Officer and observed that no reasonable cause has been adduced by the assessee in terms of Section 273B of the Act and accordingly upheld the action of the ld. Assessing Officer in levying penalty u/s 271B of the Act.

3.

Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before us.

4.

We have heard rival submissions. From the papers available on the record including the paper book of the assessee, we find that the assessee had got his accounts tax audited for the Assessment Year 2013-14, on 27/09/2013.We find that the same has been filed before the ld. Assessing Officer before the completion of the assessment proceedings. This is evident from the certificate of paper book filed by the assessee before us, wherein it is stated that the tax audit report for the Assessment Year 2013- 14, have been duly filed before the ld. Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(A). Hence this is a case of tax audit report obtained before the due date of filing of the return of income but filed before the ld. Assessing Officer before the completion of the assessment proceedings.

4.1. Now, the short question that arises is whether in this scenario penalty u/s 271B of the Act, can be levied or not. In our considered opinion, the assessee had only committed a technical venial breach without creating any loss to the exchequer. In the instant case, the tax audit report was very much made available before the ld. Assessing Officer before the completion of the assessment proceedings. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. A.N. Arunachalam [1994] 208 ITR 481 (Madras); in the context of filing of audit report for claiming deduction u/s 80J of the Act, had observed that once the audit report has been made available before the ld.

Assessment Year: 2013-14 Md. Salim Qurasi Assessing Officer, before completion of the assessment proceedings, then the assessee should be granted deduction u/s 80J of the Act.

4.1.1. We observe that this decision was rendered in the context of adjudication of quantum of deduction of the assessee. Hence the said analogy could very well be drawn and used in a penalty proceedings like that of the assessee. To conclude, we hold that the assessee had committed only technical venial breach for which he could not be penalised. In view of the aforesaid observation and respectively following the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. A.N. Arunachalam (supra), we direct the ld. Assessing Officer to delete the penalty levied u/s 271B of the Act.

5.

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed.

More judgments on Section 44AB

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →