TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 430X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to get it s accounts audited only from the specified Authority thereunder, who is to conduct the annual audit of accounts of all such societies and, further, within the time limit prescribed under the Act. Once therefore the assessee has done all it could within it s means in the facts and circumstance of it s case, visiting it with penalty which cannot be a result of a mechanical exercise, defeating the purpose and intent of s. 273B, would be unfair. In this view of the matter, we think that the assessee s case qualifies for non-imposition of the impugned penalty. We may though clarify that we are not in agreement with the assessee that the default u/s. 44AB, which attracts penalty u/s. 271B, is a technical or venial breach of law, parti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Act), agitating the Order dated 23.03.2023 by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], dismissing it s appeal contesting the levy of penalty under section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for assessment year (AY) 2017-18 vide order dated 16.07.2021. 2. The issue arising in appeal is the maintainability in law of the penalty u/s. 271B in the facts and circumstances of the case; the assessee filing the tax audit report (in Forms 3CA and 3CD) along with the audit report under the Kerala Act, as required u/s. 44AB of the Act, though with a delay of 62 days. These facts and the concomitant delay being admitted; in fact, borne out by the record, the only question that survives is if the assessee, in the facts and circumstanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tered. 3.2 It is nobody s case that in the instant case the assessee had not furnished it s accounts for audit to the Joint Registrar for audit in time, or as required by it and, further, not responded to it s queries, if any, raised or sought from time to time. The same, though material, we are not inclined to restore the matter for such inquiry back to the AO, particularly considering the extent of the delay as well as the assessee s conduct subsequent to the receipt of the audit report from the office of the Jt. Registrar, establishing it s bona fides, which are of prime relevance in penalty proceedings. It is, after all, not in the assessee s control to obtain the audit report from the Jt. Registrar. In this context, it needs to be appr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had furnished only the audit report from the Jt. Registrar, contended, on that basis, sufficient compliance of s. 44AB. The same did not find approval of the Hon ble Court, which held that only furnishing both the reports, as mandated by the provision, would be in sufficient compliance of the law. 4. To conclude, the assessee has been able to reasonably demonstrate existence of a reasonable cause for the two-month delay attending the compliance of the provisions of s. 44AB. The Revenue has, in our view, acted mechanically inasmuch as there is nothing to suggest that the assessee s conduct is, as claimed, not bona fide. The impugned penalty is accordingly directed for deletion. We decide accordingly. 5. In the result, the assessee s appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
