9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 37X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for opinion to this Court: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- levied u/s 271B in spite of the fact that the assessee was under obligation to get his accounts audited and to file the audit report within the stipulated time as pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... B can be imposed for not getting the account audited and for not obtaining the audit report under Section 44AB of the Act. The Assessing Officer was not convinced with the version of the assessee. It was held that the law required the assessee to furnish audit report along with the Income-tax return under Section 139(1) of 142(1) of the Act within the time specified. According to him, the emphasis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the parties. We find that this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Jai Durga Construction Co., (2000) 245 ITR 857 has held that the penalty under Section 271B of the Act, as it stood at the relevant point of time prior to its amendment by the Finance Act, 1995, which came into existence with effect from 1st July, 1995, was not exigible in case the audit report has been obtaine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
