• twitter-icon
Unlimited Tax Return Filing


Ahmedabad ITAT: Section 271B Penalties Only Apply for Non-Audits U/S 44AB, Not for Late Submission of Audit Reports

Ahmedabad ITAT's Order in the Case of Vardhabhai Jethabhai Patel vs The Income Tax Officer

As per the Ahmedabad Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), it said that Section 271B penalty of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is applicable merely when the accounts are not audited as mandated u/s 44AB not just for the late submission of the audit report.

The taxpayer Vardhabhai Jethabhai Patel, is an individual who is in contractual work and furnished an ITR for the Assessment year (AY) 2012-13, specifying a total income of Rs 3,57,350.

The assessment of the taxpayer has been reopened by the revenue department u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act established on information concerning gross contract receipts of Rs. 1,32,30,498, which surpassed the threshold for audit u/s 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

U/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 the reassessment was finalized specifying a total income of Rs 13,23,50,000, with an addition of Rs. 9,65,700 as profit on contract receipts.

U/s 271B of the Income Tax Act, the Assessing Officer (AO) has levied a penalty of Rs 66,152 quoting the failure of the taxpayer to submit the audit report within the said time.

The taxpayer asserted that the accounts were audited dated September 30, 2012, within the said time and the audit report was submitted dated March 26, 2013, including an Income tax return. The delay was based on filing and not on performing the audit.

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on appeal carried the penalty elaborating that the audit report was submitted post deadline for the ITR.

It was marked by the single-member bench including Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member) that the taxpayer had complied with the auditing need u/s 44AB and submitted the audit report including with the ITR.

The tribunal said that as the requirement for auditing the accounts was fulfilled, even if the filing was delayed the penalty u/s 271B of the Income Tax Act was not justifiable. The penalty order was set aside by the tribunal and permitted the plea in the taxpayer’s favour.

Case TitleVardhabhai Jethabhai Patel vs The Income Tax Officer
CitationITA No. 1197/AHD/2024
Date09.12.2024
Assessee byShri S N Divatia, Shri Samir Vora
Revenue byShri N J Vyas
Ahmedabad ITATRead Order

Disclaimer:- "All the information given is from credible and authentic resources and has been published after moderation. Any change in detail or information other than fact must be considered a human error. The blog we write is to provide updated information. You can raise any query on matters related to blog content. Also, note that we don’t provide any type of consultancy so we are sorry for being unable to reply to consultancy queries. Also, we do mention that our replies are solely on a practical basis and we advise you to cross verify with professional authorities for a fact check."

Published by Arpit Kulshrestha
Arpit Kulshrestha seeks higher interests in financial services, taxation, GST, I-T, etc. Writes articles with depth knowledge and is extensive for the same. The resources provide effective articles for the products of SAG infotech which provides taxation and IT software. Writing from observations and researching makes his articles virtuous. View more posts
SAGINFOTECH PRODUCTS

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Follow Us on Google News

Google News

Latest Posts

New Offer for Professionals

Super Tax Offer

Upto 20% Off
Tax, ROC/MCA, XBRL, Payroll, Online GST

Limited Offer, Hurry

Big Offer for Tax Experts

Upto 20% Discount on Tax Software

    Select Product*

    Genius Software