TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 824X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act') for opinion to this Court. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in upholding the Commissioner (Appeals)'s action in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 37,672 levied under section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. The dispute relates to the assessment year 1989-90. 3. The respondent/assessee a registered partnership f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... planation of the assessee and levied penalty for the failure of the assessee to furnish the return of income along with the audit report as prescribed under section 44AB within the time allowed under section 139(1) of the Act. The penalty order was cancelled by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the findings that the penalty proceeding had not been initiated during the course of proceedings under secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... course of assessment proceedings and the contrary observation by the Commissioner (Appeals) was incorrect. However, the Tribunal sustained the deletion of penalty on the ground that the audit report was obtained within the time allowed under section 139(1) of the Act and, therefore, no penalty can be levied in law. 4. Heard the learned standing counsel for the department. None appeared on beha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
