TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 532X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther under section 139 nor on a notice under section 142 of the Act? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the penalty without giving a finding of fact as to whether the tax audit report had been obtained within the prescribed time by the assessee? Held that- assessee own case involving similar question of law was decided in against the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he ground that the returns were filed belatedly neither under section 139 nor on a notice under section 142 of the Act? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the penalty without giving a finding of fact as to whether the tax audit report had been obtained within the prescribed time by the assessee?" 2. The relevant assessment year is 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e fact as to when the audit report was signed, and thereafter decide the issue on whether the audit report had been obtained within the time prescribed by the statute. In this case, the due date for return was December 31, 1993. The assessee filed his return belatedly on March 31, 1997. It may be seen that the return was not filed within the time limit stipulated under section 139(1). The return f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he provision of law, no default could be made out under section 44AB. In this case, the penalty is leviable only if the assessee fails to get his accounts audited and obtain a report. In this case, the accounts were audited and also the assessee got the audit report, but the same was filed along with the return which was filed belatedly. Hence, penalty cannot be imposed under section 271B of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
