Tribunal cancels penalty for late filing, emphasizes audit compliance and CBDT circulars

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, deleting the penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 imposed under Section 271B. It was found that the penalty was unjustified as the audit report was obtained before the due date, and the non-furnishing was due to the non-filing of the return. The Tribunal highlighted the necessity of verifying audit compliance and the relevance of CBDT circulars in penalty determinations.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the penalty under Section 271B.
2. Alleged violation of principles of natural justice.
3. Imposition of penalty despite the audit report being obtained before the due date.
4. Reasonable cause for not electronically uploading the audit report.
5. Compliance with CBDT circulars regarding the furnishing of the audit report.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the penalty under Section 271B:
The primary issue revolves around the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 under Section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for not auditing the books of accounts and furnishing the audit report before the due date of filing the return of income. The assessee argued that the penalty was invalid as the audit report was obtained before the due date, although not furnished due to the non-filing of the return.

2. Alleged violation of principles of natural justice:
The assessee contended that the penalty order passed by the CIT(A) was a gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The CIT(A) did not accept the explanation and evidence provided by the assessee, leading to an unjust imposition of the penalty.

3. Imposition of penalty despite the audit report being obtained before the due date:
The CIT(A) imposed the penalty despite the assessee claiming that the books of accounts were audited before the due date of furnishing the return of income. The CIT(A) held that the assessee failed to establish that the audit report was obtained before the due date, as no return of income was filed by the due date.

4. Reasonable cause for not electronically uploading the audit report:
The assessee argued that there was a bona fide and reasonable cause for not uploading the audit report electronically. The delay in compliance was due to the non-filing of the return of income, and the audit report was furnished when called upon by the Assessing Officer during reassessment proceedings.

5. Compliance with CBDT circulars regarding the furnishing of the audit report:
The assessee relied on CBDT Circular No. 3/2009 dated 21/05/2009, which stated that the audit report need not be furnished with the return of income but should be retained and produced on demand by the income-tax authorities. The CIT(A) did not accept this contention, stating that the benefit of presumption regarding the existence of the audit report was not available as no return of income was filed by the due date.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal examined the provisions of Sections 271B and 44AB, related rules, and CBDT circulars. It was noted that during the relevant assessment year, the assessee was not required to furnish the tax audit report along with the return of income. The mandatory electronic furnishing of the audit report was introduced only from the assessment year 2013-14. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer failed to verify whether the books of accounts were audited before the due date and only emphasized the non-furnishing of the audit report. Consequently, the penalty under Section 271B was deemed unjustified, and the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, resulting in the deletion of the penalty.

Final Judgment:
The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, and the penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 levied under Section 271B was deleted. The judgment emphasized the importance of verifying compliance with the audit requirements and the applicability of CBDT circulars in determining the validity of penalties.

---