2004 (7) TMI 329

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . 1987-88 and 1989-90. We will first take up the appeal for asst. yr. 1987-88. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company which is required to get its accounts audited under the Companies Act. The report on such audit was to be filed along with the return of income filed by the assessee. The due date for furnishing the return of income was 31st Dec., 198 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ty under s. 271B may not be imposed. However, the order imposing penalty has been passed in 2001 which was challenged before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) cancelled the imposition of penalty on the ground that the order has been passed beyond the limitation period. This finding of the learned CIT(A) has been challenged before us. 4. While the learned Departmental Representative supporte .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ction for imposition of penalty was initiated in February, 1992. Thus, the penalty order should have been passed within six months from 29th Feb., 1992. As the penalty has been imposed in 2001, the same was beyond the limitation period. The learned CIT(A) appreciated these facts and cancelled the penalty. We do not find any infirmity in his order and while upholding the same, we dismiss the ground .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X