Case Law Details
Ramunaicker Raja Vs ACIT (ITAT Chennai)
ITAT Chennai held that as per assigning reasons for delay in filing audit report under section 44AB is venial technical breach and accordingly penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act not leviable.
Facts- AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271 B of the Act for late filing of audit report under section 44AB of the Act. Since the gross receipt of the assessee for the year under consideration was ₹.1,67,35,870/-, the assessee was required to get their accounts audited and liable to file the tax audit report as required under section 44AB of the Act before the due date. Since the assessee has not filed the tax audit report within due date and in view of the provisions of section 271 B of the Act, the Assessing Officer levied minimum penalty of ₹.83,680/-. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) (NFAC) confirmed the penalty levied under section 271 B of the Act.
On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
Conclusion- Tribunal, in the case of Balaji Logistics v. ACIT, has held that reasons given by the assessee for not filing tax audit report prescribed u/s. 44AB of the Act, is neither intention nor any mala fide intention, but it is venial technical breach and for this reason, penalty u/s.271B of the Act, cannot be levied.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
