2007 (4) TMI 137

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ereinafter referred to as "the Act" for opinion of this court: "4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 59,126, Rs. 78,376 and Rs. 82,633 for the assessment years 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, respectively, by holding that no penalty under the said section is exigible for failure to furnish the audit report alon .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dit report under section 44AB obtained on Return of income under section 139(1) due on Audit report under section 44AB filed along with return under section 139(4) on 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 30-11-1990 31-10-1991 31-10-1992 22-10-1990 31-10-1991 29-10-1992 30-11-1990 31-10-1991 31-10-1992 24-4-1991 2-12-1991 31-12-1992 4 For the default on the part of the assessee of not furnishi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1972] 83 1TR 26 and in the case of CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. [1973] 88 ITR 192 (SC) were considered. 8 We have heard Sri A. N. Mahajan, learned standing counsel for the Revenue. Shri S. D. Singh has appeared for the respondent-assessee. 9 We find that the controversy raised by the assessee is similar in the case of CIT v. Jai Durga Cons .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X