ROLE AGENCIES,KUMBALAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ERNAKULAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 643/COCH/2023Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 October 2024AY 2016-17Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member), Shri Amarjit Singh (Accountant 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, as it was filed along with the return and supported by explanations. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 was against a penalty levied under section 271B for failing to furnish the tax audit report by the due date. The assessee claimed to have filed the report along with the return and provided explanations for the delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271B is leviable when the tax audit report is filed late but with a reasonable cause. Whether the explanations provided by the assessee constitute a reasonable cause under Section 273B.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271B,Section 139(1),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, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN

Before: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

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. 2016-17 arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)]’s DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1050431829(1) dated 06.03.2023 in proceedings u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).

Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. We accordingly proceed exparte against the assessee.

2.

It emerges during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have levied section 271B penalty of Rs.1,12,351/- @ 0.5% of his total turnover amounting to Rs.2,24,70,212/- on the ground that it failed to furnish it’s tax audit report within the prescribed “due” date u/sec.139(1) of the Act. The Revenue fails to Role Agencies rebut the clinching facts on record that the assessee had filed the same along with it’s return u/sec.139(1) on 16.03.2017 [for AY 2016-17] which followed sec.143(3) assessment getting framed on 29.12.2018. coupled with this, the assessee had also filed it’s detailed explanation(s) before the learned lower authorities throwing light on circumstances beyond it’s control. We conclude in these facts that the assessee’s explanation indeed forms a “reasonable cause” within the meaning of sec.273B of the Act. The impugned penalty is deleted therefore.

More judgments on Section 271B

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →