Jalpaiguri Zilla Regulated Market Committee Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata)
The ITAT Kolkata, in the case concerning penalty under section 271B for AY 2017–18, addressed whether failure to obtain a tax audit under section 44AB can be penalized when the assessee claims exemption under section 10(26AAB). The assessee, an Agricultural Produce Market Committee, did not file a return and its turnover was estimated during best judgment assessment. Based on the estimated turnover exceeding the threshold, the Assessing Officer levied penalty for non-compliance with audit requirements. The Tribunal held that audit obligations under section 44AB are independent of income exemption and are triggered solely by turnover limits. Hence, exemption from tax does not automatically waive audit requirements. However, considering that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity and had raised the plea of reasonable cause, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The appeal was thus partly allowed for statistical purposes, ensuring adherence to principles of natural justice.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT KOLKATA
This appeal filed by the Assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2017-18 dated 19.09.2025.
