Case Law Details
M/s. PMC Rubber Chemicals India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT Kolkata)
We note that the assessee has filed form no. 3CD and 3CB and the same has not been disputed therefore the tax audit report was on record and hence the penalty should not be levied. However the Assessing Officer disputed that instead of form no.3CB audit report should be in form no. 3CA. We note that the difference in form no. 3CA and form no. 3CB is that in form no. 3CA, the auditors are not required to give separate audit report. But in form no. 3CB, since that deals with the case of an assessee whose accounts have not been audited, mandates of comprehensive audit report. Therefore, when an assessee had furnished the tax audit report in form no. 3CB then it cannot be said that it has not complied with the provisions of section 44AB merely because the report is not in form no. 3CA. Thus, we are of the view that in the assessee’s case, form no. 3CB audit report with form no. 3CD is a sufficient compliance and hence penalty should not be levied. Therefore, we delete the penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/-.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT
The captioned appeal filed by the assessee , pertaining to Assessment Year 2013-14, is directed against an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-6, Kolkata which in turn arises out of penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s.271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), dated 22.06.2016.
2. However, in this appeal the assessee has raised multiple grounds of appeal but at the time of hearing, the solitary grievance of the assessee has been confined to the issue that the Assessing Officer was erred in levying penalty u/s 271B of the Act on account of not filing the tax audit report.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
