1999 (11) TMI 27 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues involved: Interpretation of section 44AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the requirement of filing audit report before the specified date.

Judgment Summary:

Issue (i):
The Tribunal dismissed the Departmental appeal, holding that the audit report was obtained before the specified date, even though it was filed along with the return of income after the specified date. The Tribunal's decision was based on the view that the audit report being obtained before the specified date was sufficient, as the law did not explicitly require filing the report before the specified date. The Tribunal cited amendments made by the Finance Act, 1995, which clarified the requirement of filing the audit report before the specified date. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the legal position was clear and no penalty was exigible under section 271B of the Income-tax Act in this case.

Issue (ii):
The Tribunal justified its decision by emphasizing that the audit report was obtained before the specified date as required by section 44AB of the Income-tax Act, 1961, despite being prepared on October 31, 1991. The Tribunal noted that the law, as it stood at the relevant time, did not mandate filing the audit report independently before the specified date. The High Court concurred with the Tribunal's interpretation, highlighting that the obligation under section 44AB was solely to get the accounts audited and obtain the audit report before the specified date, without requiring its submission to the Assessing Officer before the specified date.

Issue (iii):
The Tribunal held that there was no legal requirement, before the amendment in 1995, to file the audit report before the specified date, as section 44AB only mandated obtaining the report before the deadline. The High Court supported this view, stating that the law did not impose an obligation to furnish the audit report before the Assessing Officer by the specified date. The Court emphasized that the subsequent amendment in 1995 introduced the obligation to furnish the report before the specified date, which was not retrospective in operation. Therefore, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision and dismissed the appeal, as no substantial question of law arose in the case.