Penalty under Section 271B upheld for failing to furnish mandatory audit report despite turnover exceeding Section 44AB threshold

ITAT Surat dismissed the assessee's appeal against penalty u/s 271B for non-furnishing of audit report under Section 44AD. The assessee had turnover of Rs. 8,53,66,166/- exceeding the prescribed limit under Section 44AB requiring mandatory audit. The tribunal rejected the assessee's explanations of substantial losses, creditor payments, and senior citizen partners as unreasonable causes for audit failure. The purported tax audit report dated 23.09.2013 was not submitted to lower authorities, and the assessee failed to provide profit and loss account and balance sheet. The tribunal found the assessee's contradictory stance regarding audit completion unacceptable and distinguished cited precedents as factually inapplicable.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:

• Whether the penalty order under Section 271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was time-barred.
• Whether the assessee had a reasonable cause for failing to furnish the audit report as mandated by Section 44AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
• The applicability of CBDT Circulars extending the limitation period due to COVID-19 and whether such circulars can override the provisions of the Act.
• The relevance and applicability of prior case law and precedents cited by the assessee in defense of their position.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

1. Timeliness of the Penalty Order

The Tribunal initially quashed the penalty order under Section 271B, holding it was time-barred. The limitation period was extended by various CBDT Circulars due to the COVID-19 pandemic, allowing orders to be passed by 30.09.2021. The penalty order dated 08.08.2021 was thus within the permissible period. The Tribunal recalled its previous decision based on this extension, affirming the penalty order's timeliness.

2. Reasonable Cause for Non-compliance

The assessee claimed ignorance of compliance requirements due to the seniority of partners and substantial business losses as reasonable causes under Section 273B. The Tribunal found these reasons insufficient, emphasizing that ignorance of law is not a valid excuse. The mandatory nature of Section 44AB requires audit compliance, irrespective of the assessee's financial or personal circumstances.

3. Application of CBDT Circulars

The Tribunal addressed the assessee's argument that circulars cannot override statutory provisions. However, the Tribunal had previously considered this argument when recalling its earlier order. The Tribunal found that the extension of the limitation period by circulars was valid and applicable, thus upholding the timeliness of the penalty order.

4. Relevance of Cited Case Law

The assessee cited several cases to support their position, arguing procedural lapses should not result in penalties. However, the Tribunal found these cases factually distinguishable. For instance, in some cited cases, audit reports were furnished during assessment proceedings, unlike the present case where the audit report was not submitted. The Tribunal also referenced higher court decisions affirming penalties for non-compliance with Section 44AB, reinforcing the penalty's appropriateness.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Tribunal held that:

• The penalty order under Section 271B was not time-barred due to the extended limitation period provided by CBDT Circulars.
• The reasons provided by the assessee did not constitute "reasonable cause" under Section 273B for failing to comply with audit requirements.
• Ignorance of law and financial losses do not exempt the assessee from statutory compliance under Section 44AB.
• The Tribunal found the cited case law by the assessee inapplicable, as the facts differed significantly from those in the present case.
• The Tribunal upheld the imposition of the penalty, dismissing the appeal and affirming the decisions of the lower authorities.

The Tribunal concluded that the penalty under Section 271B was rightly imposed, as the assessee failed to demonstrate a reasonable cause for non-compliance with the statutory audit requirements. The appeal was dismissed, and the penalty order was upheld.

---