Kerala HC: Physiotherapists and Occupational Therapists Cannot Use “Dr.” Without Medical Degree  ||  Delhi High Court: Law Firms Must Verify Cited Case Laws; Senior Counsel Not Responsible for Finality  ||  MP High Court Dismisses Shah Bano’s Daughter’s Plea, Rules ‘Haq’ Movie is Fiction  ||  Bombay HC Cancels ERC Order, Rules Stakeholders Must Be Heard Before Amending Multi-Year Tariff  ||  Calcutta High Court Rules Dunlop’s Second Appeal Not Maintainable under the Trade Marks Act  ||  Kerala HC: Revisional Power U/S 263 Not Invocable When AO Grants Sec 32AC Deduction After Inquiry  ||  J&K&L HC: Section 359 BNSS Doesn’t Limit High Court’s Inherent Power U/S 528 to Quash FIRs  ||  Bombay HC: BMC Ban on Footpath Cooking via Gas/Grill Doesn’t Apply to Vendors Using Induction  ||  Madras HC: Buyer Not Liable for Seller’s Tax Default; Purchase Tax Can’t Be Imposed under TNGST Act  ||  Kerala HC: Oral Allegations Alone Insufficient to Sustain Bribery Charges Against Ministers    

Tasavver Husain, Farrukhabad vs. Income-tax Officer - (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) (12 Jun 2024)

Penalty is not leviable where there is a reasonable cause or where assessee establishes its bonafides

MANU/IA/0024/2024

Direct Taxation

In present case, during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has levied penalty, under Section 271B and various other sections of the Income-tax Act. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer vide his order has levied penalty under Section 271B on the ground that the assessee failed to get his accounts audited despite the fact that the volume of assesee's turnover was covered by the provisions of Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act.

The Assessing Officer was of the view that, the assessee has violated the provisions of Section 44AB and hence, liable to be punished under Section 271B of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.72,378. Aggrieved with the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before learned CIT(Appeals). The learned CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide impugned order.

In facts of the present case, the assessee was distributor of Mother Dairy, retired army personnel, under the bona fide belief that no books of accounts are required to be maintained since only source of earning income was commission as fixed by Mother Diary on sales of milk and other products, and there is no need of any audit of accounts appears to be bona fide belief of the assessee. Penalty is not leviable.

Section 273B of the Income Tax Act has categorically provided immunity from penalty under Section 271B to those assessees who establish, having regard to the facts, that there was a bona fide belief or a reasonable cause with respect to violation of provisions of Section 271B. There is catena of decisions, where in the context of Section 271B, Hon'ble Courts have held that, penalty is not leviable where there is a reasonable cause or where assessee establishes its bonafides. Therefore, the penalty levied in this case is legally not tenable.

There is a small delay of 40 days in filing of this appeal, for which there is an application for condonation of delay. Considering the smallness of amount and ordinate delay of 40 days, present Tribunal deem it fit to condone the delay in the interest of justice. It is settled position of law that, when technical consideration and substantial justice are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice should be given credence. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Tags :   ASSESSMENT  PENALTY  IMPOSITION

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved