9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Application u/s 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for reference rejection; Penalty u/s 271B for failure to audit account books; Reasonable cause for not auditing books; Discretionary power of authorities.
Summary: The case involved the Commissioner's applications u/s 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as the Tribunal rejected the applications for reference u/s 256(1). The assessee, a partnership firm in the tea business, faced penalties u/s 271B for not auditing account books for assessment years 1985-86 to 1989-90. The Assessing Officer imposed penalties, which were confirmed for 1985-86 due to failure to audit books within the stipulated period. However, penalties for subsequent years were set aside as the books for preceding years were not ready, hindering audit completion. The revenue raised questions regarding the imposition of penalties, arguing that the assessee failed to audit books without a reasonable cause, as required by section 44AB of the Act. The Commissioner contended that the Tribunal and the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in their decisions, emphasizing the mandatory nature of auditing under section 44AB. The Tribunal and the Commissioner (Appeals) found that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not auditing books for subsequent years due to incomplete books for the first year. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that without complete books for the previous year, auditing subsequent years was impossible, leading to the deletion of penalties for those years. The Tribunal highlighted that the assessee maintained regular books of account, although not audited as required by law. The discretion to consider reasonable cause was emphasized, with the findings of fact supporting the exercise of discretion in favor of the assessee by the authorities. Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the applications, ruling that no substantial question of law arose as the findings of the authorities were based on evidence and confirmed by the Tribunal. The exercise of discretion based on established facts did not warrant any legal question, leading to the discharge of the rule in all matters with no costs imposed.
|
