Delay in Tax Audit/ tax audit not done & Penalties Leviable

delay in tax audit Tax audit is made com­pul­so­ry u/s.44AB of the Income tax Act, 1961 for those

a) car­ry­ing on busi­ness hav­ing sales, turnover or gross receipts, as the case may be, exceed or exceeds Rs. 100.00 lacs in the pre­vi­ous year from the pre­vi­ous year end­ing 31.03.2013

b) car­ry­ing on pro­fes­sion hav­ing gross receipts exceed Rs.25 lacs from the pre­vi­ous year end­ing 31.03.2013

c) car­ry­ing on busi­ness the income from which needs to be com­put­ed on a pre­sump­tive basis and the assessee claims that the income earned is less than the pre­scribed min­i­mum amount or per­cent­age, as the case may be.

The per­sons cov­ered above need to get the accounts audit­ed before the spec­i­fied date and fur­nish the same by that date. Spec­i­fied date for this pur­pose is 30th Sep­tem­ber of every assess­ment year. How­ev­er, in cur­rent AY 2014–15 CBDT had extend­ed the due date till 30th Novem­ber for Tax Audit.

Penal­ties for Tax Audit not done/ delay in Tax audit

Sec 271B pro­vides for levy of penal­ty for non-com­pli­ance of the pro­vi­sions of sec. 44AB. Accord­ing to that sec­tion, the assess­ing office may direct that the assessee shall pay penal­ty for

a) non get­ting the books of account audit­ed or

b) not fur­nish­ing the audit report as per sec 44AB, i.e., for delay than the time spec­i­fied in sec 44AB

The penal­ty so levi­able shall be ½% of the sales, turnover, or gross receipts or Rs.1.50 lacs whichev­er is less.

Fur­ther, to clar­i­fy that as per sec 44AB, audit report is to be obtained before the spec­i­fied date and NOT “on or before” the spec­i­fied date. There­fore, one can hold a view that penal­ty can be levied wher­ev­er audit report is dat­ed as 30th Sep­tem­ber i.e., on the last day of the assess­ment year.

 

Where Penal­ty Can­not Be Levied

  • Sec­tion 273B pro­vides that notwith­stand­ing any­thing con­tained in sec 271B, no penal­ty shall be impos­able for any fail­ure referred to in sec 271B if the assessee proves that there was rea­son­able cause for the said failure.
  • The onus is on the assessee to prove the exis­tence of rea­son­able cause for fail­ure and if he proves so, no penal­ty shall be levied.
  • The word used in sec.271B is “may” and not “shall”. There­fore, the adju­di­cat­ing author­i­ty shall have to exer­cise the dis­cre­tion after con­sid­er­ing the non-obstante clause pro­vid­ed in sec 273B (i.e., rea­son­able cause). Exis­tence or absence of a rea­son­able cause is essen­tial­ly a ques­tion of fact.
  • Levy of penal­ty under sec 271B is not manda­to­ry but discretionary.
  • As per sec 44AB(1)(d), there is no need to get the books audit­ed u/s 44AB when the income from the busi­ness oth­er­wise required to be com­put­ed u/s. 44AD is less than 8 % of the turnover but the total income itself is less than the basic lim­it of that year. In those cas­es, levy of penal­ty for not get­ting the accounts audit­ed is not applic­a­ble at all.
  • Sec 44AA requires the assessee to main­tain the books. As per sec 271A, penal­ty can be levied in case where the books are not main­tained as per sec 44AA. Where the case of the assessee falls under sec 44AA and sec 44AB and the assessee claims that he did not main­tain books of account, levy of penal­ty under both the sec­tions name­ly 271A and 271B are not pos­si­ble as per the case of Ram Prakash C Puri – 77 ITD 210. Where penal­ty is already levied u/s 271A for not main­tain­ing books of account, anoth­er penal­ty u/s. 271B for not get­ting the accounts audit­ed can­not be levied.

Fol­low­ing are the instances in which the courts/tribunals have reversed the penal­ty levied u/s. 271B

i. Where the approval of the joint com­mis­sion­er was not obtained, levy of penal­ty is held to be not valid (Sree Malathi Chit Funds – 278 ITR 258).

ii.The assess­ing offi­cer did not men­tion about the ini­ti­a­tion of penal­ty pro­ceed­ings in the assess­ment order. There­fore, sub­se­quent levy of penal­ty was held to be invalid (Indi­an Hand­loom Tex­tiles – 68 ITD 560).

iii. Ill­ness of an accoun­tant of the assessee.

iv. Ill­ness of the Char­tered Accoun­tant of the assessee.

v. Ill­ness of the part­ner and sub­se­quent his under­go­ing surgery.

vi. Books impound­ed by the depart­ment12.

vii. Bonafide belief that the assessee is not cov­ered by sec 44AB.

viii. Delay in obtain­ing branch reports from over­seas branches.

ix. Delay due to time con­sumed in col­lec­tion of details from cus­tomers who are upcoun­try con­stituents and pres­sure of work of Char­tered Accountan.

x. Cur­rent year audit report is filed belat­ed­ly because of delay in com­ple­tion of audit last year.

xi. Delay was due to late appoint­ment of audi­tors under Co-op soci­eties Act.

xii. Delay was due to the delay in final­iz­ing the accounts by the Accoun­tant General’s office.

xiii. Delay is for few days

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *