Supreme Court: Air Force Group Insurance Society qualifies as ‘State’ under Article 12  ||  SC: Anganwadi Workers With Degrees Are Eligible For The 29% Quota For Supervisors in Kerala  ||  SC: Giving Accused the Option of Search Before a Police Officer Breaches Section 50 of the NDPS Act  ||  Gujarat HC: Person is Entitled to Compensation For Injury or Death Within Railway Station Premises  ||  Delhi HC: PMLA Can Apply Even if the Scheduled Offence Occurred Before the Law Came Into Force  ||  J&K&L HC: Accused Can Admit Evidence Recorded under Section 299 Crpc After Appearing in Court  ||  J&K&L HC: District Judge Serving as Reference Court under Land Acquisition Act Acts as a Civil Court  ||  Del HC: Subsequent Bail Pleas From Same FIR Should Usually Go Before the Judge Who Denied the First  ||  J&K&L HC: Vaishno Devi Shrine Board, Despite Statutory Status, is Not a ‘State’ under Article 12  ||  SC: Confirmation of an Auction Sale Does Not Bar Judicial Scrutiny of Reserve Price Valuation    

Vellakovil Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank Limited Vs. The Income Tax Officer - (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) (23 Jun 2023)

Penalty cannot be levied under Section 271B of the IT Act for venial technical breach without any mala fide intention

MANU/IX/0252/2023

Direct Taxation

Present appeals filed by the assessee are directed against separate but identical orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, passed under section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [IT Act].CIT(A) confirmed the penalty levied under section 271B of the IT Act.

Since the assessee has not filed the tax audit report under section 44AB of the Act before the due date, the Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271B of the Act, which was confirmed by the learned CIT(A). It was submitted that, the assessee was unable to file the ROI along with tax audit report within the date stipulated in the notice under section 148 of the Act due to Covid pandemic lock down and income tax portal was under maintenance, and the assessee has filed the tax audit report under section 44AB of the Act during the course of assessment proceedings, which was also considered by the Assessing Officer before concluding the assessment. Thus, when the Tax Audit Report was made available to the Assessing Officer before completion of assessment proceedings, then for venial technical breach without any mala fide intention of the assessee, the penalty cannot be levied under section 271B of the Act.

In view of decision of the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal in the case of Balaji Logistics v. ACIT for the assessment year 2015-16, present Tribunal is of opinion that it is not a fit case for levy of penalty under section 271B of the Act and accordingly, the penalty levied under section 271B of the Act stands deleted for the assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17. Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed.

Tags : ASSESSMENT   PENALTY   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved