TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 37X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as provided under section 139 (1) of the I.T. Act - 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 obtained within the specified date and the return of income has been filed beyond time – ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eference are as follows: The assessee filed its return and the same was assessed under Section 143(3) of the Act. The return was required to be submitted by 31.10.1991 under Section 139(1), whereas the same was filed on 17.12.1991 along with the audit report dated 22.10.1991. As the audit report and the return was not submitted by 31.10.1991, the Assessing Officer issued a notice to the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty under Section 271B would be clearly attracted. The Assessing Officer, therefore, held the assessee liable for penalty under Section 271B of the Act and a penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- was imposed by him vide his order dated 29.3.1993. Thereafter the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who relying on the certain decisions of the Benches of the Tribunal had ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
