9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 273X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , wife of late Shri Bhagwant Kishore Sood, has moved an application for substituting her as L.R. of late Shri Bhagwant Kishore Sood who expired on 21st Dec., 1998, and the business is now being looked after by her as prop. of M/s Sood Co. In written reply, the Department did not raise any objection against this application moved by Smt. Kusum Sood and submitted in their written reply that the name of Smt. Kusum Sood as proprietor of M/s Sood Co. may be substituted in place of Shri Bhagwant Kishore Sood. In this view of the matter, Smt. Kusum Sood is brought on record as L.R. of late Shri Bhagwant Kishore Sood and her name is substituted in his place as Smt. Kusum Sood, prop. M/s Sood Co. 3. The relevant and material facts for the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AO was not justified in imposing the penalty. The CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee, deleted the impugned penalty amount in the following manner: "I have carefully considered the submissions made by the appellant's counsel as well as going through the penalty order, I am of the considered view that it is mandatory to get the accounts audited by a prescribed date and furnish the report of the said audit in the prescribed form duly signed and verified by the accountant who audited the accounts. It is not obligatory on the part of the appellant to furnish the balance sheet, trading account and P L a/c by the prescribed date." 3.2 Before us, learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue contended that in comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y interpreted the provisions of s. 44AB wherein he mentioned that it was not mandatory for the assessee to file these documents along with the audit report. 3.3 On the other hand, learned Authorised Representative for the assessee, countering the arguments of learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue, placed strong reliance on the reasoning given in the order of the CIT(A) and contended that this Form 3CB referred by the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue was effective w.e.f. 4th June, 1999, because it was substituted by the IT (Fourteenth Amendment) Rules, 1999, whereas prior to its substitution, Form 3CB was inserted by the IT (Amendment) Rules, 1985, w.e.f. 1st April, 1985, which was relevant to the assessme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
