Tribunal revokes penalties for late tax returns, citing cooperation and subsequent compliance

The tribunal allowed 17 appeals by 12 assesses concerning penalties under section 271(1)(b) of the Act for delayed filing of returns. The tribunal found that the penalties were not justified as the assessments were completed after scrutiny, indicating cooperation with the department. Relying on precedents, the tribunal emphasized that subsequent compliance in assessment proceedings constituted good compliance, leading to the revocation of penalties. Consequently, all penalties imposed on the assesses were overturned.

---

---

Issues:
Appeals related to the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act for delay in filing returns.

Analysis:
1. The appeals involved 17 appeals by 12 different assesses concerning the penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. Due to common facts and issues, the appeals were clubbed and adjudicated together.

2. The assesses filed returns with a delay of few days to around 3 months, citing reasons such as non-availability of seizure papers and finalization of returns in numerous group cases. They argued that penalties were not justified as the assessments were eventually completed under section 144 of the Act due to bookkeeping issues, not non-compliance.

3. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the penalties, leading to the appeals before the tribunal. The assesses contended that penalties were not sustainable as the Assessing Officer considered the filed returns during regular assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act, indicating cooperation with the department.

4. The Revenue argued that the assesses were non-cooperative, justifying the penalties. The assesses relied on precedents like Noor Cottage Pvt. Ltd. case and Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust case to support their stance.

5. The tribunal considered various decisions, including Paigam Impex Pvt. Ltd. case, highlighting that subsequent compliance in assessment proceedings was seen as good compliance, leading to penalties being quashed. The tribunal also referred to the Smt. Pratima Agarwal case, emphasizing that penalties under section 271(1)(b) were not applicable when assessments were meaningfully completed under section 143(3) of the Act.

6. Ultimately, the tribunal found that the penalties were not justified as the assessments were completed after scrutiny, making them unsuitable for penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. Consequently, all 17 appeals of the assesses were allowed, and the penalties were revoked.

---