9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 664X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal is right in law in confirming the levy of penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- u/s.271B of the Act is answered in the negative. - Decided in favour of the assessee. - TAX APPEAL NO. 479 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 24-12-2014 - MR. KS JHAVERI AND MR. K.J.THAKER, JJ. FOR THE APPELLANT : MR.D K.PUJ, ADVOCATE, MS NIYATI K SHAH, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT : MR NITIN K MEHTA, ADVOCATE JUDGEMENT Per: K S Jhaveri: 1. This appeal u/s.260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is filed against the judgment and order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench in ITA No.361/AHD/1991 dated 20.09.2005 whereby, the appeal filed by the Revenue was allowed. 2. Briefly stated, the appellant-assessee is a Public Limited Compa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in law in confirming the levy of penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- u/s.271B? 5. Ms. Niyati Shah learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the appellantassessee is a sick unit under the BIFR and could not finalize its Accounts and obtain the Tax Audit Report before 31.03.1994. The assessee had submitted the original Return on the basis of the provisional Balance Sheet and P L Accounts and revised Return was filed on 04.10.1994 along with the Tax Audit Report. Therefore, there was sufficient cause behind the delay and the A.O ought not to have imposed the penalty u/s.271B of the Act. 6. Mr. Nitin Mehta learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted sufficient opportunity was granted to the assessee to fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , [2001] 119 Taxman 258 (Punj Har). 9. Considering the facts of the present case and the principle rendered in the above cases, we are of the view that the Tribunal ought not to have reversed the order of CIT(A) whereby, the penalty u/s.271B imposed by the Assessing Officer was quashed and set aside. Hence, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal in ITA No.361/AHD/1991 dated 20.09.2005 is quashed and set aside and the order of CIT(A) dated 10.12.1998 is restored. Therefore, the question of law as to whether the Tribunal is right in law in confirming the levy of penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- u/s.271B of the Act is answered in the negative in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The appeal is, accordingly, allow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
