ATTINKARA ELECTRONICS,CHENGANNUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee had filed the tax audit report belatedly but before the assessment proceedings were completed. Citing judicial consistency with earlier assessment years, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's argument for reasonable cause.
What were the facts?
The assessee failed to file its tax audit report by the due date, leading to a penalty under Section 271B. The assessee argued that the report was filed belatedly before the assessment and that the medical records of its representative constituted a reasonable cause.
What were the issues?
Whether belated filing of a tax audit report constitutes a reasonable cause for waiving the penalty under Section 271B. Whether medical records of an authorized representative can be considered a reasonable cause.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh
O R D E R Per Bench This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2015-16 arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)]’s DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1064799013(1) dated 10.05.2024 in proceedings u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
The assessee’s sole substantive ground raised in the instant appeal challenges both the learned lower authorities’ action imposing section 271B penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- on account of the fact that it had failed to file the relevant tax audit report within the due date of filing of return u/s. 139(1) of the Act.
Attinkara Electronics 3. Learned counsel first of all submits that this is not a case of non filing of assessee’s tax audit report altogether but that of belated filing only which stood complied very well before the Assessing Officer’s section 143(3) regular assessment. He next invites our attention to both learned lower authorities’ respective findings that it had also filed the medical record of its authorised representative which has been wrongly rejected as not forming a “reasonable cause” u/sec.273 of the Act.
Faced with this situation, learned Sr. D.R. could hardly dispute that this tribunal has already accepted assessee’s very case in earlier assessment years even going by the penalty order. We thus adopt judicial consistency to accept assessee’s sole substantive ground for the purpose of deleting section 271B penalty imposed by the lower authorities. Ordered accordingly.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms.
More judgments on Section 271B
- Devayatbhai Kalotara, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, RajkotITA 679/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Waghire College Saswad, Pune vs ITO, Ward 14(5), PuneITA 2867/PUN/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Waghire College Saswad, Pune vs ITO, Ward 14(5), PuneITA 2866/PUN/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Waghire College Saswad, Pune vs ITO, Ward 14(5), PuneITA 2865/PUN/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Waghire College Saswad, Pune vs ITO, Ward 14(5), PuneITA 2864/PUN/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Pradeep Kumar Behera vs. Superintendent CGST And Central Excise., CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Manas Behera vs. Commissioner, CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pramod Kumar Nayak vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, KendraparaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Nirmal Kumar Sharma S/O Ram Swroop Sharma vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 16 Oct 2026
- Sh Umang Uniyal vs. Commissioner Department Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 16 Oct 2026
