M/S.RAMRAJ AND COMPANY,KANNUR vs. ITO, KANNUR
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 had a reasonable cause for the delay in obtaining and filing the audit report, considering the delay in the preceding year's audit and the short period between the two audits. Therefore, the penalty was cancelled.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a petrol bunk owner, filed its return of income for AY 2017-18 late, along with its audit report, due to a delay in obtaining the audited accounts. The AO levied a penalty under Section 271B for this delay.
What were the issues?
Whether the delay in filing the audit report along with the return of income constitutes a reasonable cause for cancellation of penalty under Section 271B.
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 George Mathan, JM & Shri B.R. Baskaran, AM
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in appeal No. CIT(A), Kozhikode/10871/2019-20 dated 03.03.2021 for AY 2017-18 against confirmation of levy of penalty under Section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Shri R. Krishnan, CA represented the assessee and Shri V. Roy Jose, CIT- DR represented Revenue.
It was the submission of the learned A.R. that the assessee runs a petrol bunk. It was submitted that due date for filing the return for 2017- 18 was 30.09.2017. The return was filed for the relevant assessment year on 28.02.2018 along with audit report. It was the submission that as there was delay of nearly 5 months, the AO levied penalty under Section 271B of the Act to the extent of Rs.1,50,000/-. It was submitted that the assessee’s return was taken up for scrutiny and no addition had been made. It was submitted that the delay in getting the accounts audited for the 2 M/s Ramraj and Company immediately preceding year lead to the delay in getting the accounts audited for the relevant assessment year and the consequential filing of the same along with the return. It was submitted that the audited accounts for the immediately preceding assessment year was completed on 14.12.2017 and within two months, on 27.02.2018 audit of the accounts for the relevant year also got completed. It is prayed that the reasonable cause may be accepted and the penalty be cancelled.
In reply the learned D.R. vehemently supported the orders of the AO and the CIT(A). It was the submission that the purpose of Section 271B of the Act was to ensure that the accounts are audited within time which in effect affects the transparency of the return filed. It was submitted that the delay of earlier years normally shows the conduct of the assessee.
We have considered the rival contentions. A perusal of the penalty order clearly shows that the due date in the assessee’s case was 07.11.2017 as mentioned by the AO. However, the audit report has been obtained only on 27.02.2017, i.e. delayed by nearly 3 months. A perusal of the penalty order also shows that the audited report for the immediately preceding assessment year was completed on 19.12.2017 and filed along with the return on 27.02.2018. The audit report for the relevant assessment year was completed on 03.01.2018 which is within a short period of about 2 months from the completion of the audit for the immediately preceding assessment year. Completion of audit for immediately preceding year was also completed after the due date for the relevant assessment year. In these circumstances we are of the view that the assessee has reasonable cause for delay in obtaining audit report for the relevant assessment year and its delayed filing along with the return of income for the relevant assessment year. As we find that there is reasonable cause for the delay, the penalty as levied by the AO and as confirmed by the learned CIT(A) is cancelled in view of the provisions of Section 273B of the Act.
3 M/s Ramraj and Company 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
Dictated and pronounced in the open Court on 10th February, 2022.
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 →- Dr.Sunil Kumar Padhi vs. The Chief Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- N.K Fashion Through It Proprietor Mr. Narender Agarwal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Delhi EastDelhi · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetanj Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Namita Behera vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026