TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 456X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent was passed by the AO, the question of levy of penalty u/s. 271B of the Act, does not arise. The ITAT Chennai Benches in the case of Rajendran Sreedharan [ 2023 (4) TMI 1253 - ITAT CHENNAI] had considered an identical issue and held that when the Tax Audit Report was made available to the AO before he completes assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act, then penalty u/s. 271B of the Act, cannot be levied for delay in filing of such Audit Report. In this case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the assessee, although, filed Tax Audit Report beyond due date prescribed under the Act, but such Audit Report has been filed before the AO completes the assessment. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the AO is erred in levying ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of income, but such audit report has been filed on 17.02.2019 before the AO completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act, on 16.06.2020. Therefore, the delay in filing of Audit Report at best can be considered as a technical error and for said technical error, penalty cannot be levied u/s. 271B of the Act. The AO after considering relevant submissions of the assessee, levied penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- u/s. 271B of the Act, for non-submission of Audit Report on or before due date prescribed under the Act. 3. Being aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has reiterated the submissions made before the AO and argued that delay in filing of Audit Report, is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts, including Audit Report, the assessee ought to have complied with the provisions and file the Audit Report on or before due date. Therefore, the AO after considering relevant facts that the assessee did not file the Audit Report as required u/s. 44AB of the Act, on or before due date, has rightly levied penalty u/s. 271B of the Act, and their orders should be upheld. 6. We have heard both the parties, and perused the materials available on record. The fact borne out from the record clearly indicates that the assessee has filed Tax Audit Report as required u/s. 44AB of the Act, on 17.02.2019 i.e. much before the AO completed assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 16.06.2020. Therefore, the issue of levy of penalty needs to be considered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
