SURABHI SURENDRANATHAN,KOZHIKODE vs. THE ITO WARD 2 , KANNUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 423/COCH/2023Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 October 2024AY 2017-18Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member), Shri Amarjit Singh (Judicial Member)2 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 had a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the tax audit report. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271B was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed her return of income on 28.03.2018 and the tax audit report on 11.05.2018. The delay in filing the audit report was attributed to communication gaps with the auditor.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the tax audit report constitutes a reasonable cause for waiving the penalty under Section 271B.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271B,Section 273B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN

Before: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S., Advocate
For Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 22.08.2024Pronounced: 23.10.2024

O R D E R Per Bench This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2017-18 arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)]’s DIN & Order No. ITBA/ NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1051488413(1) dated 28.03.2024 in proceedings u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

2.

Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive ground that both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in levying section 271B penalty, we find that the assessee has filed her return on 28.03.2018 followed by submission of relevant tax audit report on 11.05.2018 finally culminating in section 143(3) regular Surabhi Surendranathan assessment framed on 29.10.2019. The assessee had admittedly attributed the impugned delay of 2 months in filing of relevant documents to communication gap and other miscellaneous reasons with the office of her auditor. Be that as it may, the assessee had duly filed her audit report well before the due date for filing the return. That being the case the assessee’s explanation has reasonable cause within the meaning of Section 273B of the Act; therefore, the impugned penalty is deleted.

3.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed.

More judgments on Section 271B

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →