Sohanaa International Pvt Ltd, New Delhi V. ACIT Circle-24(1), New Delhi

ITA 5797/DEL/2019

AI Insights

Sohanaa International Pvt. Ltd. appealed against the penalty imposed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 24(1), New Delhi, under section 271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for not submitting the tax audit report as required under section 44AB. The penalty was confirmed by the CIT(A), and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the lower authorities that the audit report was not submitted by the due date, which was a violation of the statutory requirements.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 115823 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-12-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 05-12-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 02-06-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 271B; 44AB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : G : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.5797/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sohanaa International Pvt. Ltd., 407, House-27, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. PAN: AAHCS2447M Vs. ACIT, Circle-24(1), New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 06.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 12.12.2022 ORDER PER C.M. GARG, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 14.06.2019 of the CIT(A)-8, New Delhi, relating to Assessment Year 2010-11, confirming the penalty imposed u/s 271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’). 2. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under:- “1. That Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-8 erred in dismissing appeal of appellant company in the order passed by Ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 24(1) Delhi u/s 271B of the I.T Act, 1961. 2. That Ld. CIT (Appeal) grossly erred both in law and on facts sustaining the penalty u/s 271B amounting to Rs.56,257/-. ITA No.5797/Del/2019 2 3. That Ld. CIT (Appeal) grossly erred to consider the fact that tax audit report under Form 3CA and 3CD was duly furnished during the course of assessment proceedings. 4. That Ld. CIT (Appeal) grossly erred to interpret the requirement of the section 44AB of the act read with rule 12(2) of income tax rules in regard of obtaining tax audit report. 5. That the order passed by the Ld. CIT (Appeal)-8 New Delhi, being erroneous in law and on facts deserved to be deleted. 6. The appellant craves leave to add or amend any ground of appeal.” 3. Before us, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment application has been filed. Since we found that this issue can be decided even in the absence of the representation from the assessee, we proceeded to decide the appeal after hearing the ld. DR. 4. In this case, penalty proceedings were initiated for not complying with the requirement of provisions of section 44AB of the Act by way of issue of notice dated 29.12.2017. The AO held that it was a fit case for imposition of penalty for not furnishing the audit report and penalty of Rs.56,257/- was imposed for default u/s 271B vide penalty order dated 28.06.2018. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A) who has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee observing as under:- “4. DECISION : The AO has levied the penalty on account of failure of the assessee in getting its accounts audited as specified u/s 44AB. During the course of appellate proceedings, the AR of the appellant has contended that the audit report dtd 28.09.2010 was furnished vide letter dtd 04.10.2017 ( while the due date of filing of return was 30.09.2010). The AR has contended that there is no violation of section 44AB and hence there is no question of penalty u/s 271B. ITA No.5797/Del/2019 3 The contentions of the AR have been considered and the order of the AO has also been perused. It is seen from the order of the AO para 5 that it is an undenied fact that neither the audit report was not furnished in time nor the return of income was filed in time. As per AO assessee had not been able to provide any justification for not furnishing the audit report. Under these circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the AO and therefore, the penalty of Rs.56,257/- levied by the AO is hereby confirmed. 5. In the result, appeal is dismissed. “ 6. Before us the assessee could not place any material to controvert the findings of the authorities below. Therefore, we find no infirmity, perversity or any other valid reason to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A). 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 12.12.2022. Sd/- Sd/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) (C.M. GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 12 th December, 2022. dk Copy forwarded to : 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi