2016 (5) TMI 214 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal upholds penalties for failure to submit Sec.92E report, emphasizing statutory compliance.

M/s. Myung Sung India Precision Pvt. Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

The Tribunal dismissed all appeals, confirming penalties under Sec.271BA for the assessee's failure to furnish the required report under Sec.92E. The ... Penalty u/s.271BA - failure of furnish a report from Accountant as required by Sec.92E at ₹ 1 lakh for each assessment years - Held that:- In the present case, there is no affidavit from the Director or by Chartered Accountant to show that report in Form No.3CEB was obtained before the due date of filing of the return or the said Audit report was made available to the AO either before processing the return u/s.143(1) or completion of assessment order u/s.143(3) of the Act. The order of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Nectar Lifesciences Ltd.(supra) and the order of Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s.GI Systems Org. (India) (P) Ltd. V. ITO [2011 (3) TMI 120 - ITAT, HYDERABAD ] is squarely applicable to the facts of the case. Accordingly, we confirm the levy of penalty u/s.271B of the Act. - Decided against assessee Issues:Confirmation of penalty u/s.271BA for failure to furnish a report from Accountant as required by Sec.92E of the Act.Analysis:The judgment involves four appeals by the assessee challenging the penalty levied under Sec.271BA of the Act for not furnishing Form No.3CEB as required by Sec.92E for assessment years 2007-08 to 2010-11. The assessee claimed to have obtained the audit report within the due date but failed to submit it to the Income Tax Department, believing electronic filing sufficed. The AO imposed penalties, upheld by the CIT(A) relying on precedents. The assessee contended that the penalty should be governed by Sec.273 of the Act, citing a Co-ordinate Bench decision. The assessee argued for reasonable cause, supported by an affidavit and legal precedents.The Tribunal analyzed the case, considering the provisions of Sec.92E and Sec.271BA. The assessee's argument of obtaining the audit report before the due date but not filing it due to a belief in electronic filing's sufficiency was examined. The Tribunal found the reasons provided by the assessee too general and attributed the failure to gross negligence, lacking a valid cause for non-compliance. The Tribunal referred to a Co-ordinate Bench decision where a similar argument was rejected, upholding the penalty under Sec.271BA.The Tribunal distinguished another case where a penalty was deleted due to a valid reason provided by the assessee, which was not present in the current case. The absence of an affidavit or evidence showing timely acquisition and submission of the audit report led the Tribunal to confirm the penalty under Sec.271BA. The Tribunal upheld the penalties imposed for all four assessment years, dismissing the appeals.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed all appeals, confirming the penalty under Sec.271BA for the assessee's failure to furnish the required report under Sec.92E, citing lack of reasonable cause and evidence of timely compliance. The judgment emphasized the importance of complying with statutory obligations and the consequences of non-compliance, reflecting a stringent approach towards penalties for such failures.