9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (12) TMI 109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... completing the assessment, the ITO has initiated penalty proceedings against the assessee for failure to get his accounts audited and obtained a tax audit report as per the provisions of s. 44AB. It is stated that the assessee filed along with the return an audit report on 4th June, 1987 as per s. 44AB. When the penalty notice was received, the assessee wrote letters on 3rd Nov., 1987 requesting for a week's time to file the explanation, sent a telegram on 9th Nov., 1987 seeking adjournment for 15 days and another letter on 30th Nov., 1987 through the authorised representative seeking further time to file the explanation. The Assessing Officer noted that though the time was granted as per the request of the assessee on earlier occasions, he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed the penalty order de hors the explanation and evidence which came on record after the completion of the penalty proceedings. Taking other materials on record and the fact that the books of accounts were handed over to the auditor at Vizianagarm only during May, 1986, he held that the delay in obtaining the audit report was based on a reasonable cause and cancelled the penalty. 3. The Asstt. CIT stated in the present appeal before the Appellate Tribunal that the assessee is a habitual defaulter for last 10 years in complying with the provisions of IT Act as was stated by the ITO and the assessee even neglected to avail of the opportunity afforded to him for filing the explanation. It is also stated in the grounds of appeal that the CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f such audit, there was delay. The fact that there were difficulties because it was the first year of operation of the provisions contained in s. 44AB and its appreciation even by CBDT was emphasised stating that the CBDT itself extended the time limit for furnishing the said audit report till 30th Sept., 1985 instead of 31st July, 1985 which was the due date. Particular emphasis was placed on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Tax Advocates Association vs. Union of India (1986) 54 CTR (Guj) 272 : (1986) 162 ITR 28 (Guj). It is stated that in the said decision itself the High Court has observed that the CBDT may consider the advisability of issuing directions in respect of maintenance of accounts books as enjoined under s. 44AB of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . So far as the asst. yr. 1985-86 is concerned, s. 271B provides for the imposition of penalty only for the failure to get the accounts audited and obtain a report of such audit as required under s. 44AB. The additional requirement of furnishing such audit report under s. 44AB along with return of income was introduced in the said provision only w.e.f. 1st April, 1989. Therefore, for the purpose of present penalty order, we have to take that the assessee has concluded with the statutory requirements on 7th July, 1986, the date on which the audit report was prepared. Thus, between the extended time limit of 30th Sept., 1985 granted by the CBDT as per general instructions and the date of obtaining the audit report on 7th July, 1986 there was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
