TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... As in the present case, in view of the circular of the Board the audit report has been obtained on September 30, 1985, that would be sufficient compliance with section 44AB of the Act. Thus, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty. – decided in favor of assessee - 21 of 2000 - - - Dated:- 16-7-2009 - R. K. AGRAWAL and S. K. GUPTA JJ. A. N. Mahajan for the Commissioner. None appeared for the assessee. JUDGMENT 1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following question of law under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), for the opinion of this court: "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment year 1985-86, in cases where - "(i) the audit report prescribed under section 44AB read with rule 6G has been obtained by 30th September, 1985 ; and (ii) the self-assessment tax under section 140A of the Act has been paid within the normal period prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act for filing return of income." 4. It was submitted that the return of income was due to be filed on or before July 31, 1985, but the assessee had filed several applications seeking extension of time to file the return up to March 31, 1986. The return was filed on March 7, 1986, and the self-assessment tax under section 140A was paid on February 4, 1986. On the facts the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the audit report p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeared on behalf of the respondent-assessee. 7. It is not in dispute that in terms of the circular dated June 19, 1985, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes which is binding upon all the authorities under section 119 of the Act, the respondent-assessee had obtained the audit report on September 27, 1985. The assessee had filed several applications from time to time seeking extension of time for filing the return up to March 31, 1986, and the return was filed on March 7, 1986, and the tax under section 140A of the Act was paid on February 4, 1986. This court in the case of CIT v. Jai Durga Construction Co. [2000] 245 ITR 857, has held that penalty under section 271B of the Act was not imposable where the audit report has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
