Case Law Details
Mr Prem Prakash Senapati Vs ITO (ITAT Cuttack)
CBDT Circular No.03/2009 dated 21.5.2009 provides as under:
“”7. Following clarifications are also issued in respect of certain issues arising from furnishing the returns in the above-mentioned forms:
(i) An assessee should obtain the report of audit from an accountant under section 44AB of the Act on or before the due date of the furnishing of the return and should fill out the relevant columns of the returns forms on the basis of such report. However, the report of audit should not be attached with the return or furnished separately any time before or after the due date. The assessee should retain the report with himself. If called for any income tax authority during any proceeding under the Act, it shall be incumbent upon the assessee to furnish/produce the same in original. No penalty under section 271B shall be initiated or levied for not furnishing the tax audit report on or before the due date. However, if the audit report has not been obtained before the due date, provisions of section 271B shall continue to be attracted.”
We find that the audit report was obtained within section 139(1) time limit is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the copy of audit report was furnished to the Assessing Officer as and when the Assessing Officer called for the same. The revenue has not brought no material on record to show that the assessee has violated the above quoted circular of CBDT. In these circumstances, following the above quoted circular of the CBDT, in our considered view, penalty levied u/s.271B of the Act in the instant case is untenable. Therefore, we delete the penalty of 63216/-levied u/s.271B of the Act and allow the appeal of the assessee. 21. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
