JAYARAJ CHARLES, PUDUKOTTAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER,-WARD-1, PUDUKOTTAI

ITA 434/CHNY/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Jayaraj Charles, who appealed against the penalty imposed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward-1, Pudukottai, for failing to upload the Tax Audit Report in Form No. 3CB and 3CD within the prescribed time for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The penalty was confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) at the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. The Tribunal noted that the Tax Audit was completed and the report was obtained within the extended deadline, and the report was furnished during the assessment proceedings, although the return was not visible on the e-filing portal due to non-verification of ITR-V by the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 134413 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-05-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 28-05-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 04-04-2023
• Other Referred Cases: Shri Ramunaicker Raja vs. ACIT (ITA No. 603/Chny/2022)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 139(1); 271B; 44AB

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “सी” ायपीठ चे ई म । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी वी. द ु गा1 राव, ाियक सद2 एवं माननीय +ी मनोज कु मार अ7वाल ,लेखा सद2 के सम9। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.434/Chn y/2023 (िनधा1रणवष1 / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Jayaraj Charles 250/1, Begum Road Nizam Colony A.M.A Nagar, Pudukottai-622 001. बनाम/ V s . ITO Ward-1, Pudukottai. थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.A DLP C-3 076- A (अपीलाथ /Appellant) : ("#थ / Respondent) अपीलाथ कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Ms. N.V.Lakshmi (Advocate) – Ld. AR "#थ कीओरसे/Respondent by : Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld.DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 29-05-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 29-05-2023 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aggrieved by confirmation of penalty u/s 271B for Rs.1,50,000/- for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The impugned order has been passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] on 07-02-2023 in the matter of impugned penalty levied by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 271B of the Act vide order dated 02-11-2021. In the penalty order, the penalty has been levied on the allegation that the assessee failed to upload Tax Audit Report in Form No.3CB and 2 ITA No. 434/Chny/2023 3CD within prescribed time. As per facts available on record, the assessee filed audit report u/s 44AB as well as its Income Tax Return on 17-03-2018. Considering the provisions of Sec. 139(1) / 139(4), the return was treated as non-est and an invalid return. The extended due date for furnishing of Tax Audit Report was 07-11-2017 as per press release dated 31-10-2017.The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. 2. From para-3 of the assessment order dated 17-12-2019, it emerges that the Tax Audit has been completed in assessee’s case on 07-11- 2017 and a copy of the same was also furnished by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings. The same has apparently been uploaded by the assessee on 17-03-2018 along with the return of income. This fact has also been noted by Ld. AO in para-3 of penalty order dated 02-11-2021. However, Ld. AO has treated the return as non- est and imposed impugned penalty on the assessee on the reasoning that the return was not appearing on the e-filing portal. 3. From the stated facts, it could be seen that substantial compliance of law was made by the assessee and Tax Audit Report was obtained within the extended time limit. The copy of the same was also furnished by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings. It is another fact that the return has been held to be non-est only because the same was not appearing on the e-filing portal possibly because the assessee did not verify the ITR-V. Nevertheless, it is not a fit case for levy of impugned penalty considering the fact that substantial compliance of law was made by the assessee. The decision of this Tribunal in Shri Ramunaicker Raja vs. ACIT (ITA No. 603/Chny/2022 3 ITA No. 434/Chny/2023 dated 15-02-2023) supports the case of the assessee. Therefore, we delete the impugned penalty. 4. The appeal stand allowed. Order pronounced on 29 th May, 2023 Sd/- Sd/- (V. DURGA RAO) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) ाियक सद2/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखासद2 / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे5ईChennai; िदनांकDated : 29-05-2023 DS आदेशकीXितिलिपअ7ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ /Appellant2. यथ /Respondent 3. आयकरआय ु त/CIT4. वभागीय त न ध/DR 5. गाड फाईल/GF