DECENT JUNCTION SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. THE ITO WARD 2(1), KOLLAM
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 held that the assessee committed only a technical breach by delaying the filing of the audit report, which caused no loss to the exchequer. Relying on various High Court and Tribunal decisions, the Tribunal deleted the penalty.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed its audit report under Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, late, on March 26, 2018, instead of the due date of September 30, 2017. This delay led to the levy of a penalty of Rs. 1,50,000 under Section 271B.
What were the issues?
Whether a penalty under Section 271B is leviable for a technical delay in filing the audit report under Section 44AB, especially when no loss is caused to the revenue.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide 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.
- CIT v. A.N. Arunachalam106 citing208 ITR 481 · 1994 · HC
- ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER v. DR K SATISH SHETTY7 citing310 ITR 366 · 2009
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH: COCHIN
Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K.
PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal by assessee is directed against order of NFAC for the assessment year 2017-18 dated 21.2.2023.
The only ground in this appeal is with regard to levy of penalty u/s 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). Yet in this case, due date for filing the audit report u/s 44AB of the Act was 30.9.2017, wherein the assessee filed the audit report on 26.3.2018 u/s 44AB of the Act. Thus, there was a delay in filing the audit report. Hence, the penalty at Rs.1,50,000/- levied in this case.
The contention of the ld. A.R. is that due to technical glitch in the ITBA portal, assessee failed to upload the audit report in time, which is a technical breach which cannot be considered to levy penalty u/s 271B of the Act.
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 →- Permender Singh vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Abdhish Dhal Samanta, Bhubaneswar vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Kniit Net Industries Private Limited, Khurda vs. Superintendent Of CGST And Central Excise, Bhubaneswar Ii CircleOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Swarnapai Chemicals (Opc) Private Limited, Cuttack vs. Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack IOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Middlex, Puri vs. Commnr. Of State Tax, Banijyakar Bhawan, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
