TIRUPATHI SASIKUMAR, SALEM V. ITO,WARD1-1, SALEM

ITA 435/CHNY/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Tirupathi Sasikumar, a proprietor of M/s. Selva Murugan Dhall Mill, who appealed against the penalty levied by the Income Tax Officer for not filing an audit report as required under section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee argued that his taxable income did not exceed the limit necessitating the filing of a return or an audit report. However, both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) found that the assessee's turnover exceeded the threshold limit, and thus, he was required to file an audit report. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, confirming the penalty imposed for non-compliance.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 127452 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-09-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 06-09-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 04-04-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 143(3); 274; 271B; 44AB

Judgement Text

आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, ‘सी’ यायपीठ, चे नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI ी महावीर संह, उपा य एवं ी जी. मंज ु नाथ, लेखा सद&य के सम BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI G.MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./I. T. A. No. 4 3 5/ Chn y/ 2 0 2 3 ( नधा रणवष / A s s e s sm e nt Yea r : 2 0 1 7- 1 8 ) Shri Tirupathi Sasikumar, 48/691, Agaram Colony, Annathanapatty, Salem – 636 002. V s The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Salem. P AN : CH M PS 9 7 3 5 H (अपीलाथ /Appellant) ( यथ /Respondent/) अपीलाथ क ओरसे/ Appellant by : Mr.S.Sridhar, Advocate(Erode) यथ क ओरसे/Respondent by : Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT स ु नवाईक तार ख/D a t e o f h e a r i n g : 07.09.2023 घोषणाक तार ख /D a t e o f P r o n o u n c e m e n t : 07.09.2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1050365923(1) dated 03.03.2023. The assessment was framed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi for the assessment year 2017-18 u/s.271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’), vide order dated 29.07.2021. 2. The only issue in this appeal of the assessee is in regard to order of the CIT(A) confirming levy of penalty by the Assessing 2 ITA No. 435/Chny/2023 Officer for non-filing of audit report u/s.44AB of the Act in violation of provisions of section 271B r.w.s 274 of the Act. 3. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts & circumstances of the case. We noted the fact that the assessee is a proprietor of M/s. Selva Murugan Dhall Mill and did not file his return of income for the relevant assessment year 2017-18, as according to him, taxable income did not exceed the limit and hence, he has not obliged to file his return of income. The assessee did not file audit report as mandated under section 44AB of the Act, though his turnover exceed threshold of limit. Accordingly, assessment was completed after selecting the assessee’s case for scrutiny u/s.144 r.w.s 143(3) by issuing notice u/s.142(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.10 lakhs u/s.69A of the Act and also assessed business income at Rs.1,68,922/-. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271B by issuing notice u/s.274 r.w.s. 271B of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer levied penalty amount of Rs.83,860/- for non-furnishing of audit report u/s.44AB of the Act and also for not filing return of income. The CIT(A) also confirmed action of the Assessing Officer by observing as under:- 3 ITA No. 435/Chny/2023 “6.1 I have carefully considered the facts of the case, detailed submission made by the appellant and order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s.271B. 6.2 It is evident that, if there is any failure on the part of the assessee to get his accounts audited in respect of any previous year relevant to the assessment year or if the assessee fails to furnish a report of search audit as. requested under Section 44AB, it is liable to be imposed with penalty under that section. Section 2738 provides that; no penalty shall be imposed for any failure referred to in Section 271B, if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure. 6.3 On going through the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer and submission made by the appellant, it is evident that appellant himself accepted that his total turnover during the F.Y 2016-17 was of Rs.1,67,71,938/- which was more than the threshold limit for getting his books of account audited u/s 44AB within the due. In the case at hand, the appellant audited u/s.44AB of the I.T.Act. The appellant’s ground that since income was below taxable limit he had not got his books of account audited u/s.44AB of the I.T. Act cannot be considered as a reasonable cause.” 4. We noted that even now, the assessee could not controvert any of the findings of the Assessing Officer or CIT(A), rather admitted that no audit report is filed by the assessee . Hence, we have no hesitation in confirming action of the Assessing Officer and that of the CIT(A). 5. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 7 th September, 2023 Sd/- Sd/- ( जी. मंज ु नाथ ) ( महावीर संह ) ( G.Manjunatha ) ( Mahavir Singh ) लेखा सद%य / Accountant Member उपा य / Vice-President चे(नई/Chennai, )दनांक/Date: 07.09.2023 DS 4 ITA No. 435/Chny/2023 आदेश क त+ल,प अ-े,षत/Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3.आयकर आय ु .त/CIT 4. ,वभागीय त न1ध/DR 5. गाड फाईल/GF.