PARTHIBARAJA ARUMUGHAM,SALEM V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), SALEM

ITA 912/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around an appeal by Parthibaraja Arumugham against the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer for the late submission of the Audit Report for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The penalty was initially confirmed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who viewed the submission as late since it was dated 23.10.2017, past the standard deadline of 30th September 2017. However, the assessee argued that the deadline had been extended to 07.11.2017 by a CBDT order, and since the report was submitted on 06.11.2017, the penalty was unjustified. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, noting the extended deadline and the timely submission within that period.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 712991 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTHAMI MANIVASAGAM
• Assessee Lawyers: KRISHNA
• Keywords: Revised return

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ \u0001यायपीठ, चे ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI \u0001ी एबी टी. वक , ाियक सद\u0011 एवं एवं एवं एवं \u0001ी जगदीश, लेखा सद क े सम\u0015 BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.912/Chny/2025 िनधा\u000eरणवष\u000e/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Parthibaraja Arumugham, 44, C1, Pattanayakar Kadu, Ammapet, Salem-636 003. v. The ITO, Ward-1(1), Salem. [PAN: AMYPP 9814 F] (अपीलाथ\u0016/Appellant) (\u0017\u0018यथ\u0016/Respondent) अपीलाथ\u0016 क\u001a ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.Sri Krishna, CA \u0017\u0018यथ\u0016 क\u001a ओर से /Respondent by : Ms.Gauthami Manivasagam, JCIT सुनवाईक\u001aतारीख/Date of Hearing : 19.06.2025 घोषणाक\u001aतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 29.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(A)”), Delhi, dated 03.01.2025 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as \"AY”) 2017-18 confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s.271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as \"the Act”) for belated filing of the Audit Report and thereby, levied penalty of Rs.1,38,073/-. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.912/Chny/2025 (AY 2017-18) Parthibaraja Arumugham :: 2 :: 2. Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee brought to his notice that assessee had got his books of accounts audited and had filed the Audit- Report in Form 3CB & 3CD within the due date u/s.139(1) of the Act; and submitted a copy before the Ld.CIT(A), wherein he found that Form 3CB & 3CD was dated 23.10.2017. According to the Ld.CIT(A), for AY 2017- 18, due date for filing of audited books of accounts was 30th September of that year; and since, the Audit Report filed by the assessee was on 23.10.2017, he was of the view that the Audit Report has been filed belatedly and therefore, he confirmed the action of the AO levying penalty u/s.271B of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 4. Having heard both the parties and after perusal of the records, aforesaid facts are not repeated for the sake of brevity and are not disputed. The only grievance of the assessee is that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in noticing the due date of filing of RoI for a person requiring to get audited books of accounts was 30th September, 2017 whereas it was brought to our notice that the Ld.CIT(A) failed to note that the due date to file the Audit Report was extended up to 07.11.2017 by the CBDT by its order u/s.119 of the Act dated 31.10.2017 vide F.No.225/270/2017/ITA.II [refer Page No.42 of the Paper Book]. According to the assessee, since the Audit Report was filed on 23.10.2017 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.912/Chny/2025 (AY 2017-18) Parthibaraja Arumugham :: 3 :: and e-filed on 06.11.2017, which fact is discernable from Page No.15 of the Paper Book [refer acknowledgement of the receipt of the Audit Report], hence, penalty was not at all warranted. In this regard, it is noted that for AY 2017-18, the assessee had filed his ITR-3 on 06.11.2017 u/s.139(1) of the Act vide acknowledgement No.292965621061117 [refer Page No.27 of the Paper Book] and had filed the RoI and the Audit Report on 06.11.2017 before the extended date given by the CBDT as noted supra. Therefore, the AO as well as the Ld.CIT(A) erred in levying penalty for belated filing of the Audit Report. Therefore, assessee succeeds and thereby, the penalty levied is directed to be deleted. 5. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on the 29th day of July, 2025, in Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (जगदीश) (JAGADISH) लेखा सद /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (एबी टी. वक ) (ABY T. VARKEY) \u0001याियक सद\u0006य/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे ई/Chennai, !दनांक/Dated: 29th July, 2025. TLN आदेश क\u001a \u0017ितिलिप अ$ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ\u0010/Appellant 2. \u0011\u0012थ\u0010/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु\u0018/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय\u0011ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड फाईल/GF Printed from counselvise.com "