2010 (12) TMI 758

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r 1989-90. The following substantial questions of law have been claimed for determination of this Court:   1- Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in taking a different view in the same set of facts and circumstances relating to the same appellant for the assessment year 1990-91 vis-à-vis 1989-90?   2- Whether the filing of the Tax Audit Report on the basis of un-audited accounts is sufficient compliance of Section 44AB, thus, giving reasonable cause to the appellant for not filing the tax audit report along with return on the basis of statutory audit?   3- Whether the non-appointment of statutory auditors was beyond the control of the appellant?   4- Whether the penalty proceedings initiated against the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Government of India. It was further the case of the assessee that on a similar account, the penalty which was levied under section 271B for the assessment year 1990-91, the same explanation was found to be reasonable. It was argued that the Tribunal was not correct in upholding the penalty under section 271B of the Act. The point for consideration in this case is, whether the assessee was liable for penalty under section 271B of the Act for getting its accounts audited belatedly.   We find force in the submission of learned counsel for the assessee.   The appellant-assessee had raised ground No.4 which reads as under:   "4.That the Ld. Tribunal in the same facts and circumstances relating to the appellant but for a dif .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... issions and have perused the orders of the tax authorities. I have also seen the case law relied upon by both the parties. I may mention that similar issue had come up before the Tribunal in the case of DCIT Vs. Goindwal Industrial and Investment Corporation of Punjab Ltd. In ITA No. 1694/Chandi/92 for AY 1990-91 wherein under similar circumstances the Tribunal held that the assessee had reasonable cause as it filed return within due date and also filed the audit report u/s 44AB along with return. The submissions of the ld. Counsel are also supported by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Solapur Zilla Vinkar Sahkari Fed. Niyamit Vs. DCIT (Pune Bench) 71 ITD 117. In view of the foregoing I decline to interfere with the order of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X