TMI Blog2000 (10) TMI 173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nable cause and, accordingly, penalty of Rs. 1 lakh was levied under s. 271B of the IT Act. The said penalty was confirmed on appeal by the learned CIT(A). 3. The assessee has come up in appeal. I have heard both the parties. The assessee is a cooperative society duly registered with the Registrar of Societies, Ahmedabad. The accounting period of assessee for the assessment year under consideration consisted of 21 months ending on 31st March, 1989. It disclosed total sales of Rs. 7,47,88,085. In the return filed on 26th Feb., 1990, the assessee disclosed total income at Rs. 2,11,270 on which tax payable was worked out at Rs. 81,387. The return was more or less accepted as per order dt. 15th March, 1991, under s. 143(3) of the IT Act. 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... If the audit report is made available to the AO during the course of assessment proceedings, the requisite conditions of s, 44AB are duly complied with. In this connection, the learned counsel for the assessee drew my attention to decision of Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. Allwyn Steel decided on 17th Jan., 2000, ITA No. 1606, 1560 1769/Ahd/1995. (iv) The assessee also submitted that delay in getting the accounts audited was not without a reasonable cause. It is submitted that special auditor is appointed by Registrar of cooperative societies under Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act. The Government auditors is not under the control of assessee and, therefore, the assessee could play no role in getting the accounts audited in time. Thus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) that the levy of penalty is discretionary and penalty is not to be imposed for technical or venial breach of a statutory provision In the present case, statutory audit was completed only on 17th Jan., 1990. The auditors raised some points in the audit report which were required to be looked into and complied with by the assessee. After complying with the various points the assessee submitted return on 26th Feb., 1990. It is not a case in which the assessee did not take proper care to comply with various statutory provisions. No default is attributable to the act and conduct of the assessee. Therefore, in my opinion, it is not a fit case for levy of penalty under s. 271B of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
