Home Income tax Corporate Income tax No Penalty U/S 271B if An Audit Report is Delay Resulting from IBC Proceedings

No Penalty U/S 271B if An Audit Report is Delay Resulting from IBC Proceedings

0
No Penalty U/S 271B if An Audit Report is Delay Resulting from IBC Proceedings
Delhi ITAT's Order for Bhushan Aviation Limited

No penalty would get charged below Part 271B of the Earnings Tax Act, 1961 for the late submitting of the audit report due to the proceedings beneath the insolvency and chapter code (IBC), the Earnings Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi bench dominated.

The taxpayer, Bhushan Aviation Restricted’s return was filed dated 29.03.2019 on the time of evaluation proceedings reporting complete earnings as NIL together with claiming losses. Thereupon the taxpayer’s case was chosen for scrutiny.

On the time of evaluation proceedings, the Assessing officer has executed the penalty proceedings on the premise of the non-filing of the audit report within the stipulated time. The taxpayer clarifies the reason for the delay to AO. However AO doesn’t settle for the taxpayer’s competition. He charged Rs 1,50,000 as a penalty below Part 271B of the Earnings Tax Act in the direction of the taxpayers.

Dissatisfied with the order the taxpayer furnished a petition to the Commissioner of Earnings Tax (Attraction){ CIT(A)}, who would have dismissed the taxpayer’s petition. Therefore the taxpayers furnished a petition to the tribunal.

On the time of proceedings, Ashwani Kumar the taxpayer’s counsel furnished that the audit report of the taxpayer’s firm was late as a result of holding firm was performing the proceedings beneath the insolvency and chapter code. Therefore the identical would consequence within the delay in amassing the proofs and information compilation.

Learn Additionally: Delhi ITAT Deletes Tax Penalty U/S 271B, NLU-Delhi Not Dedicated to Enterprise

In response to Om Parkash, the income’s lawyer, the assessee, and its holding firm are two separate authorized organizations. The assessee was additionally not the topic of IBC proceedings.

The tribunal concluded that there was a good clarification for the delay after listening to from each events that proof from the holding firm couldn’t be gathered due to IBC proceedings.

The only-member bench of Kul Bharat (Judicial Member) ordered the deletion of the penalty charged by way of the assessing officer after making an allowance for the knowledge supplied by each events.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here