9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 924X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1989 (in time), which is referred in the order of the Tribunal and the report was received from the auditors on March 31, 1991. On this fact, the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the delay was caused on the part of the auditors and it amounts to reasonable cause. We do not see any error in the order of the Tribunal. The finding of the Tribunal on the facts and circumstances that there was reasonable cause, is the finding of fact. No substantial question of law is involved. The order of the Tribunal is accordingly upheld. Appeal dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Income-tax (Appeals) has not accepted the plea of the assessee and confirmed the penalty order. Being aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the assessee further filed an appeal before the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, it was pleaded that the books of account were provided to the auditors on August 14, 1989 (in time), for the statutory audit but the audit was completed and the report was provided on March 31, 1991, and, thus, the delay was caused on account in getting the accounts audited. The Tribunal accepted the explanation of the assessee and held that since the assessee had handed over its books of account to the auditors well before the stipulated date, the delay was caused on the part of the auditors ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dvertently questions involved in all the aforesaid four assessment years have been typed in all the memorandum of appeals. He submitted that question No. 2 only relates to the assessment year 1991-92, which requires adjudication, which reads as follows : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in giving the assessee benefit of 'reasonable cause' for the delay in preventing it from complying with the provisions of section 44AB of the Incometax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92 ?" Sections 44AB and 271B of the Act read as follows : "44AB. Audit of accounts of certain persons carrying on business or profession.-Every person, (a) carryi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h law before the specified date and furnishes by that date the report of the audit as required under such other law and a further report by an accountant in the form prescribed under this section. Explanation.-for the purposes of this section,- (i) 'accountant' shall have the same meaning as in the Explanation below sub-section (2) of section 288 ; (ii) 'specified date', in relation to the accounts of the assessee of the previous year relevant to an assessment year, means the 31st day of October of the assessment year." "271B. Failure to get accounts audited.-If any person fails to get his accounts audited in respect of any previous year or years relevant to an assessment year or furnish a report of such audit as required under section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es Society Ltd. v. Union of India [2003] 263 ITR 334 (Mad), the Madras High Court while examining the provisions of section 44AB and section 271B pleased to observe as under (page 343) : "This court is of the considered view that the provisions as contained under section 139(9), Explanation (e), and section 44AB and section 271B can be harmoniously read together and the expression 'without reasonable cause' provides a sufficient insulation to the workability of section 44AB. It is a better clue and it does not exclude the use of discretion to drop the penalty proceedings if there is sufficient cause. The conspectus of the whole situation is that both the provisions, i.e., section 44AB along with section 271B and section 139(9), Explanation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. Penalty will not also be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. Whether penalty should be imposed for failure to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exercised judicially and on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances.'" Similarly, the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench in the matter of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam v. ITAT [2003] 262 ITR 262 (Raj) pleased to observe that since the assessee was required to get the accounts audited from the Accountant General Office and has no control over that office and held that the Tribunal has committed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
