Case Law Details
M/s B. W. M International Vs. I.T.O (ITAT Kolkata)
Assessee has not explained before us the reasonable cause for delay in getting the tax audited done. The ld. Counsel only stated that the tax audit report was signed on 21.12.2005 and the return was filed on 28.12.2005 and explained us that tax auditor delayed the accounts, is not acceptable in view of the tax auditor certificate mentioned above.The assessee has explained the delay between 21.12.2005 to 28.12.2005 which is not relevant here, because this is the further delay after getting the delayed tax audit report. The counsel for the assessee has failed to explain the delay between 30.09.2005 to 21.12.2005 therefore, we are of the view that it is failure on the part of the assessee.
Unless it is proved that there was reasonable cause for the failure, there is no escape from the imposition of penalty. Section 271B does not leave any discretion at the hands of the authority except as provided in section 273B. It is only when reasonable cause for failure is proved, the penalty can be avoided. In this case under consideration, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has failed to prove the reasonable cause. The assessee cannot simply shirk his responsibility by saying that there was delay on the part of the CA whereas we noticed that there was delay on the part of the assessee. It is the duty of the assessee to ensure that the CA is doing his job properly. The assessee should have inquired periodically or at least within a reasonable time as to whether the tax audit report signed/filed or not with the revenue authorities. In this case, the assessee has not established any correspondence between himself and the CA. As per the certificate of the CA, it is also clear that he could not complete the tax audit because assessee did not submit some papers/documents to him, (relevant portion of CA certificate is reproduced below:
“Due to want of some papers/documents the tax audit of said firm was completed by us as on 21.12.2005.”
Therefore, it is abundantly clear that the assessee has failed to submit the relevant papers/documents to the CA to get the accounts audited. The assessee has failed to explain the delay in submitting the books of accounts to his CA. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has cited a lot of judgments of High Courts/Tribunals but these are not applicable to the fact of the case as discussed above. Therefore, considering the factual position we confirm the penalty u/s 271B of the Act.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
