TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 1349
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....undertaking engaged in the business of generation of electricity and a subsidiary company of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited. It filed its return on 25.09.2014 declaring loss of Rs. 34.85 crores which was revised on 30.09.2015 declaring Nil income. The Assessing officer observed that tax audit of the assessee company was conducted on 28.09.2015. Hence, assessee failed to get its accounts audited by an accountant and furnish the audit report before the specified date, i.e. 30.09.2014 as required u/s 44AB. He therefore, imposed penalty of Rs. 1.50 lacs u/s 271B of the IT Act by not accepting the reasons for delay in obtaining the tax audit report so submitted by the assessee. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty by hol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on 15.01.2015 and thereafter the tax auditor completed the tax audit on 28.09.2015. From the above facts, it can be noted that delay in getting the tax audit in the year under consideration is because of delay in conducting the statutory audit of earlier years which has resulted into delay in conducting of the statutory audit and tax audit for the year under consideration as without conducting the statutory audit and tax audit for FY 2012-13, tax audit for FY 2013-14 could not have been conducted. Thus, there is a reasonable cause in not obtaining the tax audit report u/s 44AB within the due date. 5. It was further submitted that Section 273B of the Act provides that no penalty u/s 271B shall be imposable on the assessee if it proves that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... auditors are appointed by the Comptroller & Auditor General of India under section 619(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 and they have completed the statutory audit and submitted their audit report dated 27.03.2014. Thereafter, the tax audit has been completed on 15.07.2014 and the revised return was filed on 16.9.2014. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Punjab State Leather Development Corpn. Ltd. [2001] 119 Taxman 258 has held that delay in completion of statutory audit was a reasonable cause for non-compliance with section 44AB and it was held that the Tribunal was right in cancelling penalty levied under section 271B. Respectfully following the same, we are of the view that in the instant case, where there ha....