RAHA T AMIT,ITANAGAR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD NORTH LAKHIMPUR, NORTH LAKHIMPUR

ITA 105/GTY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Raha T Amit, the appellant, who was penalized by the Income Tax Officer for not filing an audit report as required under section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to his receipts exceeding Rs. 1,00,00,000. The penalty was initially upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) at the National Faceless Appeal Centre, leading to the appeal at the ITAT. The appellant argued that he was covered under section 10(26) of the Act, which led him to believe that he was not liable for an audit. The ITAT, considering the arguments and the provisions cited, decided in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the principles of reasonable cause.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 716955 (ITAT-GUWAHATI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 28-04-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 273B

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GUWAHATI BENCH, GUWAHATI (VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA) SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 105/GTY/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Raha T Amit, Ganga Village, PO R.K. Mission, Itanagar (Arunachal Pradesh) - 791113 [PAN: APOPT0095D] .....................…...……………....Appellant vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward North Lakhimpur, Aaykar Bhawan, Bora Complex, D K Road, North Lakhimpur, Assam - 787001 ...…..…................................. Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Anil Kumar Agarwala, FCA Department represented by : Kausik Ray, JCIT Date of concluding the hearing : 13.08.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 21.08.2025 ORDER PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. The present appeal arises from order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) dated 04.04.2025, passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. 1.1 In this case, the Ld. AO has imposed a penalty u/s 271B of the Act, for non-filing an audit report u/s 44AB of the Act, even when his receipts exceeded Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. Aggrieved with this action, the assessee Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No. 105/GTY/2025 Raha T Amit 2 approached the Ld. CIT(A), where he could not succeed since it was held that the assessee was under a statutory obligation to get his accounts audited as per section 44AB of the Act. 1.2 Aggrieved with this action also, the assessee has approached the ITAT with the following grounds: “For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law as well as on facts in confirming the penalty imposed u/s 271B. For that the appellant urges leave to add to, modify or delete any ground of appeal, before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 1.3 Before us, the Ld. AR argued that the assessee was duly covered under the provision of section 10(26) of the Act. Since, he was covered under this section hence, he was under a genuine belief that there was no liability to get his accounts audited. It was averred by the Ld. AR that this fact was duly brought to the notice of the Ld. AO and the same has been recorded on page 2 of his penalty order. The Ld. AR stated that even before the Ld. CIT(A) this argument was advanced but it did not find favour with him. The Ld. AR concluded his arguments by stating that this was a case where the principles of “reasonable because” would apply and the assessee deserves relief. 2.1 The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of authorities below. 3. We have carefully considered the submissions of Ld. AR/DR and have gone through the orders of Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A). We find considerable strength in the arguments of the Ld. AR that the assessee was under a genuine belief that he was not required to get his accounts audited since he was covered under the provisions of section 10(26) of the Act. After consideration of the facts, we feel that this case would be covered under the provisions of section 273B of the Act and would deserve relief Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No. 105/GTY/2025 Raha T Amit 3 on that account. Accordingly, the impugned penalty is directed to be deleted. 4. In result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 21.08.2025 Sd/- Sd/- [Manomohan Das] [Sanjay Awasthi] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 21.08.2025 AK, Sr. PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR) //True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No. 105/GTY/2025 Raha T Amit 4 Printed from counselvise.com "