Income Tax

Penalty 271J-Furnishing incorrect report-certificate by CA, merchant banker or registered valuer. CIT(A) may direct Rs 10000 penalty

Penalty 271J-Furnishing incorrect report-certificate by Chartered Accountants, merchant banker or registered valuer. CIT(A) may direct Rs. 10000 as penalty for each report/certificate

Budget 2017-18 : Penalty on professionals for furnishing incorrect information in statutory report or certificate.

The thrust of the Government in recent past is on voluntary compliance. Certification of various reports and certificates by a qualified professional has been provided in the Act to ensure that the information furnished by an assessee under the provisions of the Act is correct. Various provisions exist under the Act to penalise the defaulting assessee in case of furnishing incorrect information. However, there exist no penal provision for levy of penalty for furnishing incorrect information by the person who is responsible for certifying the same.

In order to ensure that the person furnishing report or certificate undertakes due diligence before making such certification, it is proposed to insert a new section 271J so as to provide that if an accountant or a merchant banker or a registered valuer, furnishes incorrect information in a report or certificate under any provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder, the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) may direct him to pay a sum of ten thousand rupees for each such report or certificate by way of penalty.

It is further proposed to define the expressions “accountant”, “merchant banker” and “registered valuer”.

It is also proposed to provide through amendment of section 273B that if the person proves that there was reasonable cause for the failure referred to in the said section, then penalty shall not be imposable in respect of the proposed section 271J.

These amendments will take effect from 1st April, 2017.

Also Read:

Panalty u/s 271J – Those afraid of the sword of the Damocles, should not aspire to be Dionysius Click Here >>

Share

Recent Posts

  • Income Tax

Non-deduction of TDS does not make transaction as unexplained in the hands of deductee – ITAT

Mere non-deduction of TDS by the deductor on a transaction does not change the character of the transaction to make…

2 days ago
  • ICAI

Last date to submit MEF 2026-27 extended to 09.09.2026

ICAI has extended the last date to online submit Multipurpose Empanelment Form (MEF)- 2026-27 from 29th August 2026 to 9th…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

Validity of demand u/s 156 for default u/s 115-O, if assessment order u/s 143(3) has Nil demand

Can a demand notice be issued u/s 156 for non-payment of Dividend tax u/s 115-O, when as per assessment order…

4 days ago
  • Income Tax

Issue already examined and adjudicated by CIT(Appeals), can’t be reopened on same set of facts

The issue already examined and adjudicated by the quasi-judicial authority, i.e., CIT(Appeals), cannot be reopened on the same set of…

5 days ago
  • Income Tax

TDS can’t be denied for non deposit of tax deducted by the deductor – High Court

One TDS is deducted, credit has to follow, failure of deductor to deposit the amount to the credit of the…

6 days ago
  • Income Tax

Cash withdrawal from bank can’t be taxed u/s 69C as unexplained expenditure – ITAT

Merely because assessee did not explain purpose of cash withdrawal from bank, it can not be taxed u/s 69C as…

6 days ago