LATEST DETAILS

Audit of accounts of certain persons carrying on business or profession - Penalty for failure to get accounts audited-Cancellation of penalty was justified as there is a reasonable cause for submitting audit report after specified date

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

 

IT Appeal No. 11 of 2008

 

Commissioner of Income-tax.........................................................................................Appellant.
v.
Iqbalpur Cooperative Cane Development Union Ltd. ...................................................Respondent

 

BARIN GHOSH, CJ.
AND SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

 
Date :MAY  31, 2013 
 
Appearances

H.M. Bhatia for the Appellant.
Amar Shukla and Gopal Narain for the Respondent.


Section 44ab & 271b of the Income-tax Act, 1961—Audit of accounts of certain persons carrying on business or profession

Audit of accounts of certain persons carrying on business or profession - Penalty for failure to get accounts audited - Cancellation of penalty was justified as there is a reasonable cause for submitting audit report after specified date

facts

The assessee was a co-operative society registered under the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. The accounts of the assessee were required to be audited in accordance with the provisions of section 64 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. Turnover exceeded Rs. 1 crore for the relevant previous years. By the virtue of the proviso to section 44AB of the Income tax Act, 1961, the assessee was not required to have one more audit to be conducted in addition to the audit conducted by the registrar in terms of section 64 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. However, by reason of the mandate contained in section 44AB, such auditing was required to be conducted before the specified date and the auditor was required to sign and verify the audit report on or before the specified date. This compliance was not done by the assessee on or before the specified date. Thus, penalty proceedings u/s 271B was initiated and penalty of Rs. 1 lakh was levied. Being aggrieved, assessee went on appeal before CIT(A). CIT(A) upheld the order passed by the A.O. Being aggrieved, assessee went on appeal before Tribunal. Tribunal cancelled the penalty. Being aggrieved, Revenue went on appeal before Court.

held
That court upheld the decision of the Tribunal. Tribunal cancelled the penalty proceedings and gave the relief u/s 273B to the assessee which says that penalty is not imposable if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for the failure and as the assessee had been able to establish that there was a reasonable cause for the delay inasmuch as the appointment of the auditor was not within its domain nor was  it within its domain to have the auditor to be appointed by the Registrar or such person to be appointed by the State Government to complete the same within the time as provided for in the Income tax Act, 1961. In the result, appeal was dismissed and answered in favour of assessee.

JUDGMENT


The judgment of the court was delivered by

Barin Ghosh, CJ. - Respondent is a co-operative society registered under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. Sub-section (1) of Section 64 of the said Act directs the Registrar, or any other person appointed by the State Government, to audit or cause to be audited by a person authorized by him by general or special order in writing and possessing such qualifications as may be specified by the State Government in this behalf, accounts of every co-operative society, at least once in each co-operative year. The accounts of the respondent were, accordingly, required to be audited in accordance with the mandate contained in section 64 of the Act. Income of a co-operative society under the Income Tax Act, 1961 is taxable. Section 80P of the Income Tax Act permits certain deductions in respect of income of co-operative societies. During the relevant assessment years, respondent co-operative society did not earn such income for which it was required to pay tax under the Income-tax Act. The relevant part of Section 44AB of the Income-tax Act is as follows:—

"Every person,—

(a) carrying on business shall, if his total sales, turnover or gross receipts, as the case may be, in business exceed or exceeds one crore rupees in any previous year get his accounts of such previous year audited by an accountant before the specified date and furnish by that date the report of such audit in the prescribed form duly signed and verified by such accountant and setting forth such particulars as may be prescribed:

Provided further that in a case where such person is required by and under any other law to get his accounts audited, it shall be sufficient compliance with the provisions of this section if such person gets the accounts of such business or profession audited under such law before the specified date and furnishes by that date the report of the audit as required under such other law and a further report by an accountant in the form prescribed under this section.

Explanation —For the purposes of this section, —

ii. "specified date", in relation to the accounts of the assessee of the previous year relevant to an assessment year, means the due date for furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of Section 139."

2. In the instant case, the turnover of the respondent exceeded Rs. 1 crore for the relevant previous years. By virtue of the proviso as above, respondent was not required to have one more audit to be conducted in addition to the audit to be conducted by the Registrar in terms of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act. However, by reason of the mandate contained in Section 44AB, such auditing was required to be conducted before the specified date and the auditor was required to sign and verify the audit report on or before the specified date. The same was not done. It was done, however, after the specified date. In that view of the matter, penalty proceeding under section 271B was initiated and the respondent was penalized by imposition of penalty of Rs. 1 lac. Respondent lost before the Commissioner of Appeals, but succeeded before the Tribunal. Relief was given by the Tribunal to the respondent under section 273B of the Income Tax Act holding that, in that matter of delaying in completing the audit and signing the audit report, respondent has been able to establish that there was reasonable cause therefor, inasmuch as, neither appointment of the auditor was within its domain and, at the same, time, it was also not within his domain to have the auditor to be appointed by the Registrar or such other person to be appointed by the State Government to complete the same within the time as provided for in the Income-tax Act.

3. That being the situation, we find no scope of interference with the Appeal. The Appeal fails and the same is dismissed.

 

[2013] 356 ITR 343 UTTARAKHAND)

Professional services available Audit Management
Tax Lok English Viedo
Tax Lok Hindi Viedo
Check Your Tax Knowledge
Youtube
HR Consulting services

FOR FREE CONDUCTED TOUR OF OUR ON-LINE LIBRARIES WITH OUR REPRESENTATIVE-- CLICK HERE

FOR ANY SUPPORT ON GST/INCOME TAX

Do You Want To Take FREE DEMO Of Our GST/Income Tax Library.