CHENNIAPPAN RAMADURAI,ERODE vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, COIMBATORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1336/CHNY/2023Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 June 2024AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI (Judicial Member), SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA (Accountant Member)5 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 facts of the case were identical to a previous decision where a similar penalty was deleted. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271B was not leviable.

What were the facts?

During a survey, suppressed sales were detected, leading to reopening of the case and additions to income. The assessee failed to get their accounts audited within the stipulated time, resulting in a penalty under Section 271B.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271B is leviable for delayed filing of audit report when facts are identical to a previous case where penalty was deleted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271B,Section 133A,Section 147,Section 148,Section 44AB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA

Hearing: 30.05.2024Pronounced: 12.06.2024

Heard together (3 matters)

ITA Nos.1336/Chny/2023
ITA Nos.1339/Chny/2023
ITA Nos.1342/Chny/2023

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M : In its opening arguments, the Ld.AR of the appellant informed that for Assessment Years 2018-19 & AY-2019-20 respectively and ITA Nos.1342/Chny/2023 for AY 2019-20 are having common issues and disputes and therefore as requested the impugned appeals are adjudicated together.

, 1339 & 1342/Chny/2023 :- 2 -:

This appeal is filed against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA/APL/M/250/2023-24/1056408093(1) dated 22.09.2023 of Ld.CIT(A) 19, Chennai. Through the aforesaid appeal the assessee has challenged order u/s 250 dated 22.09.2023 passed by Ld.CIT(A) 19, Chennai. 2.0 It is seen from records that there is delay of 01 day in filing of this appeal. The assesse has submitted that it was on account of delay in handing over papers to the authorized representatives. Evidences brought on record allude that there is sufficient force in the assessee’s arguments. It is trite law that no appellant gains by delaying its petition for redressal of its grievances. The delay in filing the appeal is therefore condoned and the appeal is being adjudicated as under. 3.0 Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 22.09.2023, the assesse has raised grounds of appeal 1 to 4. 4.0 Ground of appeal no.1 to 4 are regarding imposition of penalty u/s 271B of the Act vide order dated 16.03.2022. The AO noted that a Survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted upon the assesse engaged in the business of whole sale and retail trading of textiles on 28.06.2020. Consequent to the survey incriminating documents indicating suppression of sales was noted. The case of the assesse was reopened u/s 147 r.w.s , 1339 & 1342/Chny/2023 :- 3 -:

148 of the Act. The assessing officer considering undisclosed sales turnover of Rs.2,09,25,334/- proceeded to make additions to the returned income. As per the penalty order the assessee did not respond to the show cause notices issued by the AO. From the material available on record the AO concluded that the assesse failed to get the accounts audited and submit requisite report u/s.44AB. Accordingly, he imposed penalty of Rs.1,50,000/-. 5.0 Before the Ld.CIT(A) the assessee informed that the due date for filing of audit report for AY-2018-19 was 30.09.2018 which was extended upto 31.10.2018 by the CBDT. The appellant filed audit report on 28.02.2019 after a delay of 120 days. Before the Ld.CIT(A), the appellant also contested that the penalty proceedings had actually got time barred. The Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee holding that the arguments put forth by the appellant were not satisfactory. 6.0 The Ld.AR vehemently argued that the Ld.CIT(A) has wrongly sustained the order of the assessing officer. In support of his contentions, the appellant relied upon the decision of this tribunal in dated 15.02.2023 wherein penalty u/s 271B on account of late filing of audit report was deleted. 7.0 The Ld.DR placed reliance upon the order of the Assessing Officer and Ld.CIT(A). It was submitted that the order of lower authorities , 1339 & 1342/Chny/2023 :- 4 -: is based upon correct understanding of the facts. The Ld.DR also submitted that no law can be framed by the Tribunal and that the relief accorded vide the dated 15.02.2023 was erroneous. 8.0 We have heard rival submission in the light of facts of the case and material brought on records. It has been noted that the facts of the present case are identical to the facts of the case in which decision of the coordinate bench of this tribunal in ITA No.603(Supra) was taken. The Ld.DR has not distinguished the facts of present case with those available in ITA No.603(Supra). Accordingly, respectfully following the decision of the coordinate bench of this tribunal in ITA No.603(Supra), it is held that there is no case for levy of penalty u/s 271B in this case. The ground of appeal nos. 1 to 4 are therefore allowed. 9.0 In the result the appeal is allowed. ITA Nos.1339/Chny/2023 For Assessment Years A.Y-2019-20 in the case Shri Chenniappan Ramadurai, [PAN: AELPR2706M] and ITA Nos.1342/Chny/2023 for AY 2019-20 in the case of Smt. Ramadurai Amutha, [PAN: AFVPA4816L] 10.0 As discussed above, the facts of case in the above mentioned appeals were reported by the Ld.AR to be identical to the one in For Assessment Years A.Y-2018-19 in the case Shri Chenniappan Ramadurai, [PAN: AELPR2706M]. Accordingly, the decision taken therein follows: , 1339 & 1342/Chny/2023 :- 5 -:

11.0 In the result the appeal for impugned and 1342(Supra) are also allowed. Order pronounced on 12th June, 2024 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 271B

All 1,993 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →