AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 413
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d under s. 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein- after referred to as "the Act") relevant to Assessment Years (AYs) 2013- 14 & 2014-15. Since issues are either inter-connected or common, for the sake of convenience, we dispose of all these appeals by this consolidated order. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: ITA No.129/Rjt/2018 for A.Y 2013-14. Learned CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on fact in confirming penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- imposed by Ld.AO u/s. 271B of the Act. ITA No.190/Rjt/2018 for A.Y 2014-15. Learned CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on fact in confirming penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- imposed by Ld.AO u/s. 271B of the Act. ITA No.191/Rjt/2018 for A.Y 2014-15. Learned CIT(A) has erred in law ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with the statutory provision of the Act. 3. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A). The assessee before the Ld. CIT (A) submitted that the return of income and tax audit report was uploaded on income tax website after the due date only because of technical default as PAN of it was not registered on income tax website. 3.1 The assessee further submitted that as per the provision of section 273B of the Income Tax Act, the penalty should not be imposed if there was reasonable cause for the said non-compliance. 4. However the Ld. CIT (A) disregarded the submission and held that the technical default referred by the assessee was general and without any supporting evidence. The Ld. CIT (A) accordingly confirmed the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Sangh Ltd vs. ACIT (2017) Taxpub 1590, Jaipur Bench d. Hindustan Steel Limited vs. State of Orissa 1970 AIR SC 253." 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR submitted that the reasons furnished by the assessee for the delay in filing the appeal are not plausible. Therefore the same cannot be subject to immunity under section 273B of the Act. 7. The Ld. DR vehemently supported the order of authorities below. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on the record. The issue in the instant case is that the assessee was required to get its account audited under provision of section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, and subsequently audit report in the prescribed Performa-Form 3CD was to be uploaded on the income tax we....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the tax audit report in which no specific defect was pointed out by the assessee in the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act. Therefore we are of the view that there was no palpable prejudice caused to the Revenue. Regarding this, we find support and guidance from the order of Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench in the case of Govind Garg, Prop. Garg Enterprises v/s ITO reported in 2017 TaxPub(DT) 1623(JP-Trib) wherein it was held as under: "Penalty under section 271B--Delay in filing tax audit report under section 44ABReasonable cause--Unloading due to technical problem --Where AO imposed penalty under section 271B for non-filing of audit report it was not justified on the ground of reasonable cause that, assessee had bona fidely be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d judicially and on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. Even if a minimum penalty is prescribed, the authority competent to impose the penalty will be justified in refusing to impose penalty, when there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act or where the breach flows from a bona fide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute." 8.5 In view of the above, we hold that there was no mala-fide intent of the assessee to delay the filing of the tax audit report. Therefore we are of the considered opinion the penalty under section 271B in the given facts & circumstance is not sustainable. Accordingly, we reverse the order of the authorities below. Therefore the ground ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee when it committed the default in the complying of the provision of filing the tax audit report. The assessee was to file the tax audit report on 30-11-2014 but filed on 31-1-2015 for the AY 2014-15 with the delay of two months only. The question here arises whether the assessee was a serial defaulter in compliance with the provision of section Act. Regarding this, we note that the first notice for the AY 2013-14 under section 271B of the Act was issued on 11-3-2016 whereas the time limit to file the tax audit report for the year under consideration (2nd year) was 30-11-2014. Thus it is clear that the assessee was not aware of the proceeding of the section 271B of the Act which was initiated much later as discussed above. Theref....