9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar,. PC:- (PER M. S. SONAK, J.) 1. Heard Ms Dinkle Hariya for the Appellant and Mr Suresh Kumar for the Respondent. 2. This Appeal was admitted on 22 November 2005 on the following substantial questions of law:- "1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in confirming the penalty u/s. 271B of the Act? 2. Whether, in the facts and circumstances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 61. 4. Ms Hariya submitted that the audited accounts for Assessment Year 1985-1986 were finalised, and the return of income was filed on 13 January 1986. She submitted that this Appeal concerns Assessment Year 1986-1987 and, consequently, is related to the previous year 1985-1986. She pointed out that there were raids on 30 March 1984, 27 July 1984 and 2 November 1985. The authorities seized book ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... documents. Similarly, he submitted that no good cause was shown for the delay in preparing and filing the audit report. Accordingly, he submitted that this Appeal ought to be dismissed. 6. The rival contentions now fall for our consideration. 7. This Appeal concerns the Assessment Year 1986-1987. Therefore, the previous year would be 1985-1986. 8. There is a record, and further, it is undisput ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons. However, the main consideration is the quality of the cause shown. 11. Besides, Ms Hariya pointed out that after the accounts were filed for Assessment Year 1985-1986, again, there were raids and seizures. Due to this, the Appellant couldn't file the audit report within the prescribed period. Still, it is not as if the Appellant was indolent. All steps were possible in the circumstances that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vercoming them, the audit report was filed. 14. There is yet another circumstance based upon which the discretion should have been exercised favouring the Appellant. The Revenue accepted the Appellant's returns. In that sense, there was no loss to the Revenue. There was a delay. However, merely because there was a delay there is no case for imposition of penalty. 15. After considering all the ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
