Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 413 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s. 271B - delay the filing of the tax audit report - filed after a gap of 7 months 5 days - non-compliance with the statutory provision of the Act - assessee submitted that the return of income and tax audit report was uploaded on income tax website after the due date only because of technical default as PAN of it was not registered on income tax website - reasonable cause for the non-compliance - HELD THAT:- It was the 1st year when it was made mandatory to upload the tax audit report online. Therefore, we can understand that the assessee may not be well aware of the procedures for uploading the tax audit report online. Being the 1st year of filing tax audit report online, we are taking the sympathetic view and accordingly directing the AO to delete the penalty under section 271B of the Act in the interest of the justice & fair play. The assessee has made the substantial compliance by filing the tax audit report in which no specific defect was pointed out by the assessee in the assessment framed u/s 143(3). Therefore we are of the view that there was no palpable prejudice caused to the Revenue. See GOVIND GARG PROP. GARG ENTERPRISES VERSUS ITO, WARD- 2 (3) , AJMER [2017 (6) TMI 433 - ITAT JAIPUR] There was no mala-fide intent of the assessee to delay the filing of the tax audit report. Therefore we are of the considered opinion the penalty under section 271B in the given facts & circumstance is not sustainable. Second year of the assessee when it committed the default - whether the assessee was a serial defaulter in compliance with the provision of section Act - assessee was to file the tax audit report on 30-11-2014 but filed on 31-1-2015 for the AY 2014-15 with the delay of two months only - HELD THAT:- First notice for the AY 2013-14 u/s 271B was issued on 11-3-2016 whereas the time limit to file the tax audit report for the year under consideration (2nd year) was 30-11-2014. Thus it is clear that the assessee was not aware of the proceeding of the section 271B which was initiated much later as discussed above. Therefore in our considered view, the assessee deserves the sympathetic view as taken in the AY 2013-14. In view of the above and considering the length of delay, we reverse the order the authorities below. Therefore the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed.
|