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 >>
Notice issued u/s 143(2) prior to filing of return of income by the assessee was invalid. Before filing ITR provisions…
Order u/s 148A(d) passed against non-existent entity is bad in eyes of law. Mere activation of PAN not give right…
Tax authorities not bound with provisions of section 44AE of the Act once assessee waived the option available In a…
Whether seized document is incriminating or not is definitely a findings of fact – High Court In a recent judgment,…
Interest earned on borrowed funds/ unutilized capital subsidy are capital receipts In a recent judgment, Hon'ble Guwahati High Court has…
There is no statutory requirement of pre-deposit for stay of demand under Income Tax Act - High Court stayed demand …