ATHIRAMPUZHA REGIONAL SERVICE CO -OP BANK LTD,KOTTAYAM vs. THE ITO , KOTTAYAM
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal deleted the penalty levied under Section 271B, acknowledging the assessee's reasons for the delay and noting that the audit report was filed before the assessment was completed. The Revenue could not dispute the reasons for the delay.
What were the facts?
The assessee failed to submit its tax audit report within the due date, attributing the delay to non-approval from the concerned government authority. The audit report was eventually submitted before the assessment order was framed.
What were the issues?
Whether a penalty under Section 271B is leviable when the delay in filing the tax audit report is due to reasons beyond the assessee's control and the report is filed before the assessment is completed.
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
Per Bench : These assessee’s appeals for A.Y. 2017-18 arise against the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)]’s DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1049276432(1) dated 26.07.2023, in proceedings u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).
The case was called twice. None appeared on behest of the assessee. Therefore, we proceeded to hear the appeal exparte qua the assessee.
The assessee’s sole substantive ground herein seeks to reverse both the learned lower authorities action levying section 271B penalty(ies) on account of the fact that it had failed to submit its tax audit report belatedly than within the “due” date u/s. 139(1) of the Act. We note in this backdrop that the assessee’s stand from the very beginning has attributed the & 628/Coch/2023 Athirampuzha Regional SCB Ltd. foregoing delay in filing the tax audit report in the course of assessment to non-approval thereof from the concerned government authority(s) as per the state co-operative law. We find that the assessee had duly submitted it’s audit report(s) very well before framing of section 143(3) assessment itself. And that the Revenue could not even dispute the assessee’s reasons explaining the impugned delay. Faced with this situation, we delete the section 271B penalty herein in these peculiar facts and circumstances. Ordered accordingly.
These assessee’s twin appeals in ITA 617 & 628/Coch/2023 are allowed in above terms. A copy of the common order be placed respective case files.
Order pronounced in the open court on this 12th Day of August, 2024.
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 →- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026