Gauhati HC: DRT Has to Dispose of Application under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act as per RDB Act  ||  Kerala HC: Showing or Waving Black Flag to a Person Cannot Amount to Defamation  ||  Del. HC: Merit Based Review of Arb. Award Involving Reappraisal of Factual Findings is Impermissible  ||  Del. HC: It is the Product and Not the Technology Used that Determines HSN Classification  ||  P&H HC: Provis. of Punjab Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen (First Amendment) Rules are Unconstitutional  ||  Cal HC: High Time that Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage be Read as Grounds of Desertion & Cruelty  ||  Supreme Court: Third Party Can File SLP Against Quashing Of Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Absolute Ownership in Property as Per HSA Can’t be Claimed by Woman with Limited Interest  ||  SC: Can’t Forego Fundamental Requirements of Election of Society in Absence of Specific Provisions  ||  SC: Special Efforts Should be Made to Identify Women Prisoners Eligible for Release u/s 479 of BNSS    

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 2024 - All Rights Reserved