TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 998
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....confirming the levy of penalty of Rs. 1,38,337/- u/s 271B of the IT Act, 1961. 2. The assessee craves to amend, alter and modify any of the grounds of appeal. 3. The appropriate cost be awarded to the assessee. 2. The assessee is a State Government Undertaking engaged in the business of mining. Since there was a delay in filing the audit report as per section 44AB of the IT Act on or before the due date of filing the return of income under section 139(1) of the IT Act, the AO levied a penalty under section 271B of the Act. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the ld. CIT (A) but could not succeed. 3. Before us, the ld. A/R of the assessee has submitted that there is a reasonable cause for delay in gett....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....istrar of Companies u/s 96(1) of the Companies Act, 2013. Accordingly, the statutory audit was conducted on 24.03.2015 and also the tax audit u/s 44AB and both the reports were filed online on the same date. These reports have been considered in framing the assessment u/s 143(3). It is settled law that levy of penalty u/s 271B is subject to the provision of section 273B which provides that no penalty shall be imposable on the assessee if it proves that there is a reasonable cause for the failure. Penalty cannot be levied mechanically for mere contravention of the provision of section 44AB without examining whether there was reasonable cause as advanced by the assessee for the said failure or default. In support of his contention, he has rel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....44AB was due to the reasons as explained by the assessee which were beyond the control of the assessee being a State Government Undertaking. The assessee has also filed a copy of resolution for seeking extension of time from ROC for convening the AGM and adoption of books of account. Thus the assessee has explained all the relevant facts and reasons for not getting the accounts audited under section 44AB within the stipulated period. The Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in case of Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. vs. ACIT (supra) while considering an identical issue has held in para 7 as under :- " 7. We have heard the rival contentions and purused the material available on record. In the instant case, the limited issue ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1B. Respectfully following the same, we are of the view that in the instant case, where there has been a delay in completion of statutory audit, there exist a reasonable cause for the delay in completion and submission of the tax audit report under section 44AB of the Act. The penalty levied under section 271B is therefore deleted." Thus it is clear that the Coordinate Bench has followed the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of CIT vs. Punjab State Leather Development Corporation Ltd. reported in 119 Taxman 258 (P&H). Further, in case of Johns Biwheelers vs. ACIT (supra), the Cochin Bench of the Tribunal has also considered an identical issue in para 7 and 7.1 as under :- " 7. We have heard the rival submis....