ITAT deletes section 271B penalty for delayed audit report filing citing good faith and technical breach

The ITAT Bangalore ruled in favor of the assessee regarding penalty under section 271B for delayed filing of audit report. The Tribunal held that penalty levy is not automatic and requires proving absence of reasonable cause. The assessee, being a first-time auditee unaware of separate due dates for audit reports, acted in good faith believing the report could be filed with the income tax return. Since the audit report was available before assessment completion, constituting only a technical breach without revenue loss or malafide intent, the penalty was deleted and the assessee's appeal was allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Imposition of penalty under Section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Existence of reasonable cause under Section 273B for failure to comply with Section 44AB.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:

The appellant filed the appeal with a delay of 8 days. The appellant submitted an affidavit explaining that the delay was due to reasons beyond their control and was neither intentional nor willful. The Appellate Tribunal, after considering the submissions and the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and Ors., decided to condone the delay. The Tribunal emphasized that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, especially when the delay was not deliberate. The Tribunal found this to be a fit case to condone the short delay and admitted the appeal for adjudication.

2. Imposition of Penalty under Section 271B:

The penalty under Section 271B was imposed because the appellant failed to obtain and furnish the audit report within the due date as required under Section 44AB. The appellant argued that the delay was not intentional and was due to a lack of awareness about the requirement to file the audit report by the specified date. The appellant also highlighted that this was the first year of audit, and there was a delay in identifying a Chartered Accountant to carry out the audit. The authorities below, however, held that ignorance of the law is not a valid excuse and upheld the penalty.

3. Existence of Reasonable Cause under Section 273B:

The Tribunal examined whether there was a reasonable cause for the appellant's failure to comply with Section 44AB, as provided under Section 273B. The Tribunal noted that the penalty under Section 271B is not automatic and that the existence of a reasonable cause must be considered. The appellant demonstrated that the delay was due to an honest and bona fide belief about the filing requirements, and there was no deliberate intention to disregard the law. The Tribunal found that the appellant's conduct indicated a lack of awareness rather than willful neglect. The Tribunal also observed that the tax audit report was made available to the Assessing Officer before the completion of the assessment proceedings, and there was no loss to the exchequer. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant had a reasonable cause for the delay, and the penalty under Section 271B should not be imposed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal annulled the order of the lower authority and canceled the penalty levied under Section 271B, allowing the appeal filed by the appellant. The decision emphasized the importance of considering reasonable cause and the circumstances surrounding the appellant's failure to comply with statutory obligations.

---